<?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 (7) TMI 245 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54554</link>
    <description>Customs and central excise demands on capital goods used by an export oriented unit cannot be sustained without a specific exemption condition requiring exclusive use or independent evidence of misuse; job work for a domestic unit is permissible, so the related demands were set aside. Duty-free domestic tariff area supplies under the applicable Exim Policy cannot be fastened on the export oriented unit where any duty liability falls on the purchaser; that demand was also set aside. Remaining demands required de novo adjudication because factual objections, documentary evidence, exemption claims and departmental statements had not been properly examined, with penalty left open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:14:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93031" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 245 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54554</link>
      <description>Customs and central excise demands on capital goods used by an export oriented unit cannot be sustained without a specific exemption condition requiring exclusive use or independent evidence of misuse; job work for a domestic unit is permissible, so the related demands were set aside. Duty-free domestic tariff area supplies under the applicable Exim Policy cannot be fastened on the export oriented unit where any duty liability falls on the purchaser; that demand was also set aside. Remaining demands required de novo adjudication because factual objections, documentary evidence, exemption claims and departmental statements had not been properly examined, with penalty left open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54554</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>