<?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>1994 (4) TMI 180 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83521</link>
    <description>Interest under Section 61(2) of the Customs Act was treated as compensatory, aimed at ensuring prompt clearance of warehoused goods and discouraging overstay in the warehouse. The Tribunal held that liability to pay interest was not excluded merely because the goods were ultimately exempt from duty at the time of clearance. On that basis, the demand for interest on delayed clearance was sustained and the challenge to the order failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:28:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120666" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (4) TMI 180 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83521</link>
      <description>Interest under Section 61(2) of the Customs Act was treated as compensatory, aimed at ensuring prompt clearance of warehoused goods and discouraging overstay in the warehouse. The Tribunal held that liability to pay interest was not excluded merely because the goods were ultimately exempt from duty at the time of clearance. On that basis, the demand for interest on delayed clearance was sustained and the challenge to the order failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83521</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>