<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Appeal dismissed: Imported gold coins denied concessional duty rate for lacking required engraved serial numbers under S.No.1 &amp; S.No.2 notification</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93421</link>
    <description>CESTAT dismissed the appeal, upholding denial of the concessional duty rate for imported gold coins. The tribunal affirmed that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving entitlement under the exemption notification because the coins lacked the mandated engraved serial numbers and therefore did not satisfy the notification&#039;s unambiguous description for S.No.1 or S.No.2. Applying the principle that clear statutory language admits only its plain meaning, CESTAT found no infirmity in the reasons of the lower authorities and concluded there was no merit in the challenge to classification or exemption claim; the assessment and duty denial were consequently sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2025 08:08:43 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2025 08:08:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=859113" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appeal dismissed: Imported gold coins denied concessional duty rate for lacking required engraved serial numbers under S.No.1 &amp; S.No.2 notification</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93421</link>
      <description>CESTAT dismissed the appeal, upholding denial of the concessional duty rate for imported gold coins. The tribunal affirmed that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving entitlement under the exemption notification because the coins lacked the mandated engraved serial numbers and therefore did not satisfy the notification&#039;s unambiguous description for S.No.1 or S.No.2. Applying the principle that clear statutory language admits only its plain meaning, CESTAT found no infirmity in the reasons of the lower authorities and concluded there was no merit in the challenge to classification or exemption claim; the assessment and duty denial were consequently sustained.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2025 08:08:43 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93421</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>