<?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>1987 (4) TMI 203 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72956</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the reference applications, emphasizing that the questions raised did not warrant a reference to the High Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act. It clarified the leviability of customs duty on exempted goods, the inapplicability of promissory estoppel in customs duty matters, and the jurisdictional limitations of the Tribunal in deciding certain questions that are within the purview of the High Court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 May 2011 11:46:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111235" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (4) TMI 203 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72956</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the reference applications, emphasizing that the questions raised did not warrant a reference to the High Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act. It clarified the leviability of customs duty on exempted goods, the inapplicability of promissory estoppel in customs duty matters, and the jurisdictional limitations of the Tribunal in deciding certain questions that are within the purview of the High Court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72956</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>