<?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>2004 (11) TMI 259 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53729</link>
    <description>Imported components re-worked and actually used in watch manufacture were held entitled to concessional duty, and the cancellation of the bond before such use did not defeat exemption where substance prevailed over form. Alleged diversion of duty-free materials as spare parts, however, would disentitle the importer to exemption if established, so that issue required fresh factual examination and remand. The requirement of an end-use certificate for goods moved to another unit was treated as procedural because the Department already knew of the Dehradun assembly unit and the goods were used in manufacture; suppression was not proved, so extended limitation could not be invoked.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:00:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92206" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 259 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53729</link>
      <description>Imported components re-worked and actually used in watch manufacture were held entitled to concessional duty, and the cancellation of the bond before such use did not defeat exemption where substance prevailed over form. Alleged diversion of duty-free materials as spare parts, however, would disentitle the importer to exemption if established, so that issue required fresh factual examination and remand. The requirement of an end-use certificate for goods moved to another unit was treated as procedural because the Department already knew of the Dehradun assembly unit and the goods were used in manufacture; suppression was not proved, so extended limitation could not be invoked.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53729</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>