<?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>1999 (1) TMI 168 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91322</link>
    <description>The appeal was made by the Commissioner against the Collector (Appeals) decision granting duty refund on hot rolled steel coils. The Collector (Appeals) found the claims were not barred by limitation, and duty refund should be paid to the importer. The court upheld the decision, stating the duty was paid provisionally under court orders. The judgment in Solar Pesticides India Ltd. v. U.O.I. was applied despite a pending appeal. The cross-objection seeking interest on refund payment was dismissed due to lack of provision but left open for future consideration under Section 27A of the Act. The appeal and cross-objection were both ultimately dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:47:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128384" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (1) TMI 168 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91322</link>
      <description>The appeal was made by the Commissioner against the Collector (Appeals) decision granting duty refund on hot rolled steel coils. The Collector (Appeals) found the claims were not barred by limitation, and duty refund should be paid to the importer. The court upheld the decision, stating the duty was paid provisionally under court orders. The judgment in Solar Pesticides India Ltd. v. U.O.I. was applied despite a pending appeal. The cross-objection seeking interest on refund payment was dismissed due to lack of provision but left open for future consideration under Section 27A of the Act. The appeal and cross-objection were both ultimately dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91322</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>