<?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>2025 (12) TMI 1571 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784031</link>
    <description>Under the DFIA scheme, in-shell walnuts were treated as falling within the relevant generic input descriptions of &quot;nut and nut products&quot; and &quot;dietary fibre&quot;, so the basic customs duty exemption under Notification No. 25/2023-Cus was upheld. The commentary also states that, for inputs not covered by a specific FTP restriction, the scheme does not require a separate ITC(HS) match or technical correlation beyond the authorization&#039;s input description and quantity. A later clarificatory circular was noted as supporting that position, and the appeal was unsuccessful because existing precedent and the circular left no basis to interfere with the advance ruling.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Dec 2025 08:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=874261" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 1571 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784031</link>
      <description>Under the DFIA scheme, in-shell walnuts were treated as falling within the relevant generic input descriptions of &quot;nut and nut products&quot; and &quot;dietary fibre&quot;, so the basic customs duty exemption under Notification No. 25/2023-Cus was upheld. The commentary also states that, for inputs not covered by a specific FTP restriction, the scheme does not require a separate ITC(HS) match or technical correlation beyond the authorization&#039;s input description and quantity. A later clarificatory circular was noted as supporting that position, and the appeal was unsuccessful because existing precedent and the circular left no basis to interfere with the advance ruling.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784031</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>