<?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>1997 (9) TMI 203 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87275</link>
    <description>Cess under Section 12 of the Rubber Act, 1947 was confined to rubber produced in India, so imported natural rubber did not attract the levy. The Tribunal relied on clarifications issued by the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Commerce stating that the cess applied only to domestically produced rubber, and treated that administrative clarification as binding on customs authorities. The demand was therefore unsustainable and cess was not leviable on the imported goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 18:15:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124342" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 203 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87275</link>
      <description>Cess under Section 12 of the Rubber Act, 1947 was confined to rubber produced in India, so imported natural rubber did not attract the levy. The Tribunal relied on clarifications issued by the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Commerce stating that the cess applied only to domestically produced rubber, and treated that administrative clarification as binding on customs authorities. The demand was therefore unsustainable and cess was not leviable on the imported goods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87275</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>