TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether interest on differential customs duty could be levied in respect of a transaction that occurred before the statutory provision for interest was introduced.
Analysis: The liability asserted by the Department was founded on Section 28A(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The transaction in question had taken place in 1993, while the provision for levy of interest was introduced only by the Finance Act, 1996. As the provision did not operate retrospectively, it could not be applied to a prior transaction to sustain the demand for interest.
Conclusion: The demand for interest was unsustainable, and the assessee was not liable to pay interest on the differential duty.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
