<?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>2009 (3) TMI 464 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76422</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit on additional customs duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act was treated as unavailable where the duty was discharged by debit in a DEPB pass book rather than by cash payment, because the Cenvat Credit Rules and the Exim Policy contemplated credit only for duty actually paid. A later Board clarification stated that duty discharged through DEPB debit should be regarded as duty paid and not as exempted goods, raising the question whether that clarification could apply retrospectively to prior imports. The Tribunal&#039;s view was sustained, but the adjudicating authority was directed to verify whether similar retrospective treatment had been extended to other importers and, if so, to grant the same relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114631" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 464 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76422</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit on additional customs duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act was treated as unavailable where the duty was discharged by debit in a DEPB pass book rather than by cash payment, because the Cenvat Credit Rules and the Exim Policy contemplated credit only for duty actually paid. A later Board clarification stated that duty discharged through DEPB debit should be regarded as duty paid and not as exempted goods, raising the question whether that clarification could apply retrospectively to prior imports. The Tribunal&#039;s view was sustained, but the adjudicating authority was directed to verify whether similar retrospective treatment had been extended to other importers and, if so, to grant the same relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76422</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>