<?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>2026 (4) TMI 167 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789098</link>
    <description>Customs recovery proceedings under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 could proceed for non-levy or short-levy of duty even without a separate challenge to the bill of entry or out-of-charge order, so finality of assessment did not bar notice. On exemption, Boronated Calcium Nitrate was held not to qualify for concessional duty under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. because the notification covered only calcium nitrate as a specified water-soluble fertilizer. The exemption was strictly construed, and the claimant had to prove clear entitlement; a materially distinct product could not claim the benefit by implication. The duty demand was therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2026 08:49:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=894806" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 167 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789098</link>
      <description>Customs recovery proceedings under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 could proceed for non-levy or short-levy of duty even without a separate challenge to the bill of entry or out-of-charge order, so finality of assessment did not bar notice. On exemption, Boronated Calcium Nitrate was held not to qualify for concessional duty under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. because the notification covered only calcium nitrate as a specified water-soluble fertilizer. The exemption was strictly construed, and the claimant had to prove clear entitlement; a materially distinct product could not claim the benefit by implication. The duty demand was therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789098</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>