<?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 (12) TMI 156 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54787</link>
    <description>The expression &quot;for use&quot; in a concessional import notification refers to intended use, not strict proof of actual consumption in every case. Where a portion of imported crude palm oil was short received, damaged in transit, or not physically consumed, the concession could not be denied in the absence of evidence that the goods were diverted to another purpose. The absence of diversion was material, and the notification benefit remained available on the facts found.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:35:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93264" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 156 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54787</link>
      <description>The expression &quot;for use&quot; in a concessional import notification refers to intended use, not strict proof of actual consumption in every case. Where a portion of imported crude palm oil was short received, damaged in transit, or not physically consumed, the concession could not be denied in the absence of evidence that the goods were diverted to another purpose. The absence of diversion was material, and the notification benefit remained available on the facts found.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54787</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>