<?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 (10) TMI 209 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52534</link>
    <description>A 100% export oriented undertaking could not be subjected to duty, confiscation, or penalty on capital goods where the goods were installed and used for export production and the export-linked conditions of the exemption were satisfied. The adjudicating authority&#039;s own findings showed use within the zone, exports far exceeding the value of the capital goods, and the required value addition; the Development Commissioner also recorded compliance with the letter of approval and export obligation. On that factual record, violation of the exemption conditions was not established, and the alternative theory of deemed removal from the zone failed because actual removal was not proved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2010 13:32:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91011" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 209 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52534</link>
      <description>A 100% export oriented undertaking could not be subjected to duty, confiscation, or penalty on capital goods where the goods were installed and used for export production and the export-linked conditions of the exemption were satisfied. The adjudicating authority&#039;s own findings showed use within the zone, exports far exceeding the value of the capital goods, and the required value addition; the Development Commissioner also recorded compliance with the letter of approval and export obligation. On that factual record, violation of the exemption conditions was not established, and the alternative theory of deemed removal from the zone failed because actual removal was not proved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52534</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>