<?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>2024 (12) TMI 1664 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465129</link>
    <description>Notification No. 45/2005-Cus was read as granting special additional duty exemption for goods cleared from an SEZ to another place in India, with the proviso applying only where the goods, if sold in the domestic tariff area, were exempt from sales tax or VAT. On that reading, stock transfers to a DTA manufacturing unit were not outside the exemption merely because there was no actual sale, and the benefit could not be denied by importing an additional condition. Circular No. 44/2013-Customs could not retrospectively narrow the notification or withdraw a benefit already available under its plain terms. Penalty was also not sustainable where the procedural framework had been followed and the duty demand itself failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2025 14:00:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=869856" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 1664 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465129</link>
      <description>Notification No. 45/2005-Cus was read as granting special additional duty exemption for goods cleared from an SEZ to another place in India, with the proviso applying only where the goods, if sold in the domestic tariff area, were exempt from sales tax or VAT. On that reading, stock transfers to a DTA manufacturing unit were not outside the exemption merely because there was no actual sale, and the benefit could not be denied by importing an additional condition. Circular No. 44/2013-Customs could not retrospectively narrow the notification or withdraw a benefit already available under its plain terms. Penalty was also not sustainable where the procedural framework had been followed and the duty demand itself failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465129</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>