<?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 (3) TMI 350 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54394</link>
    <description>Non-production of a Duty Exemption Certificate at the time of clearance was treated as a procedural lapse, not a substantive bar to exemption. The imported capital goods satisfied the exemption notification&#039;s core conditions, and the certificate was later produced from the competent authority. That later production amounted to substantial compliance, so the delayed filing did not defeat the exemption claim or the refund entitlement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:06:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92871" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 350 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54394</link>
      <description>Non-production of a Duty Exemption Certificate at the time of clearance was treated as a procedural lapse, not a substantive bar to exemption. The imported capital goods satisfied the exemption notification&#039;s core conditions, and the certificate was later produced from the competent authority. That later production amounted to substantial compliance, so the delayed filing did not defeat the exemption claim or the refund entitlement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54394</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>