<?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>2001 (9) TMI 165 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50798</link>
    <description>Notification No. 8/97-C.E. was construed to extend concessional duty to goods manufactured by a 100% EOU and sold in India in accordance with the Export-Import Policy. Where the Development Commissioner had already authorised DTA sales in a quantified value after accounting for physical exports and deemed exports, the excise authorities could not ignore that permission and recalculate the entitlement on the basis of physical exports alone. If the Revenue disputed the policy basis of the authorisation, the proper course was to approach the Development Commissioner. Clearance under the authorised excise permission and duty payment remained effective, so the notification benefit could not be denied on the exclusion of deemed exports.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2025 09:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89277" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (9) TMI 165 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50798</link>
      <description>Notification No. 8/97-C.E. was construed to extend concessional duty to goods manufactured by a 100% EOU and sold in India in accordance with the Export-Import Policy. Where the Development Commissioner had already authorised DTA sales in a quantified value after accounting for physical exports and deemed exports, the excise authorities could not ignore that permission and recalculate the entitlement on the basis of physical exports alone. If the Revenue disputed the policy basis of the authorisation, the proper course was to approach the Development Commissioner. Clearance under the authorised excise permission and duty payment remained effective, so the notification benefit could not be denied on the exclusion of deemed exports.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50798</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>