<?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 (12) TMI 177 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87478</link>
    <description>Section 27 permits a person who has paid customs duty to seek refund of duty so paid, and it contains no exception excluding claims arising from disputed classification. A refund claim is therefore not barred merely because the importer says the goods were wrongly classified at assessment. The view that the importer was confined only to an appeal against classification was rejected, and the refund claim was held maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 13 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 12:44:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124545" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (12) TMI 177 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87478</link>
      <description>Section 27 permits a person who has paid customs duty to seek refund of duty so paid, and it contains no exception excluding claims arising from disputed classification. A refund claim is therefore not barred merely because the importer says the goods were wrongly classified at assessment. The view that the importer was confined only to an appeal against classification was rejected, and the refund claim was held maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 13 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87478</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>