<?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 (11) TMI 278 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74736</link>
    <description>Section 20 of the Customs Act allows relief on re-import only where the goods are brought back within three years of exportation. A vehicle re-imported after that statutory period was held to fall outside the proviso, because the time limit was treated as mandatory and not capable of extension by discretion. Relief under Section 20 was therefore unavailable, and the denial of refund was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:35:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113015" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (11) TMI 278 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74736</link>
      <description>Section 20 of the Customs Act allows relief on re-import only where the goods are brought back within three years of exportation. A vehicle re-imported after that statutory period was held to fall outside the proviso, because the time limit was treated as mandatory and not capable of extension by discretion. Relief under Section 20 was therefore unavailable, and the denial of refund was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74736</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>