<?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>2008 (12) TMI 228 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48663</link>
    <description>Goods manufactured with inputs procured under the DEPB scheme were held ineligible for All Industry Rate Drawback where the applicable notifications excluded products manufactured or exported by availing DEPB. The input procurement through DEPB debit was treated as use of the scheme at the manufacturing stage, so the exporter could not combine DEPB benefits with drawback for the same export goods. The governing fiscal notifications and export policy were construed strictly and according to their plain language, with no expanded reading permitted. Accordingly, the drawback claim was not admissible and the Revenue&#039;s rejection of the claim was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Aug 2017 09:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87143" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (12) TMI 228 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48663</link>
      <description>Goods manufactured with inputs procured under the DEPB scheme were held ineligible for All Industry Rate Drawback where the applicable notifications excluded products manufactured or exported by availing DEPB. The input procurement through DEPB debit was treated as use of the scheme at the manufacturing stage, so the exporter could not combine DEPB benefits with drawback for the same export goods. The governing fiscal notifications and export policy were construed strictly and according to their plain language, with no expanded reading permitted. Accordingly, the drawback claim was not admissible and the Revenue&#039;s rejection of the claim was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48663</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>