<?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>2003 (7) TMI 127 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51956</link>
    <description>Imported compounded rubber sheets used for laying a synthetic athletic track did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 109/94-Cus. because the notification was confined to synthetic tracks and artificial surfaces falling under Heading 95.06, while the goods were classified under Heading 4005.99. A circular relating to a different notification could not expand the scope of the exemption. The notification&#039;s condition requiring re-export within six months was also mandatory, and non-compliance could not be excused on the ground that the failure was not attributable to the importer. The exemption was therefore unavailable and the demand was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:01:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90434" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 127 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51956</link>
      <description>Imported compounded rubber sheets used for laying a synthetic athletic track did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 109/94-Cus. because the notification was confined to synthetic tracks and artificial surfaces falling under Heading 95.06, while the goods were classified under Heading 4005.99. A circular relating to a different notification could not expand the scope of the exemption. The notification&#039;s condition requiring re-export within six months was also mandatory, and non-compliance could not be excused on the ground that the failure was not attributable to the importer. The exemption was therefore unavailable and the demand was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51956</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>