<?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 (10) TMI 321 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92773</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. It concluded that the 28% discount was admissible as a result of genuine negotiation, not influenced by any special relationship. Confiscation of goods and demand for additional duty were deemed unjustified. The issue of the extended period for duty demand was not addressed due to the appeal&#039;s success on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Nov 2011 10:35:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129834" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (10) TMI 321 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92773</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. It concluded that the 28% discount was admissible as a result of genuine negotiation, not influenced by any special relationship. Confiscation of goods and demand for additional duty were deemed unjustified. The issue of the extended period for duty demand was not addressed due to the appeal&#039;s success on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92773</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>