<?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>2005 (4) TMI 163 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54140</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the duty demand and penalty imposed on the appellant, concluding that the duty exemption scheme requirements were fulfilled by exporting suits directly from the job worker&#039;s premises. The Tribunal found the evidence of export submitted by the appellant to be reliable, as the Customs authorities had accepted the export under the DEEC scheme. Therefore, the duty demand and related proceedings were deemed unwarranted, leading to the appeal being allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:50:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92617" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 163 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54140</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the duty demand and penalty imposed on the appellant, concluding that the duty exemption scheme requirements were fulfilled by exporting suits directly from the job worker&#039;s premises. The Tribunal found the evidence of export submitted by the appellant to be reliable, as the Customs authorities had accepted the export under the DEEC scheme. Therefore, the duty demand and related proceedings were deemed unwarranted, leading to the appeal being allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54140</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>