<?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>2001 (5) TMI 284 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96185</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the appeals for refund of excess duty and demurrage charges. It was held that the Appellant, although entitled to the refund due to the accepted value of goods, failed to follow the prescribed procedures under Section 27 of the Customs Act for refund claims. Additionally, the Tribunal emphasized that the Customs Act does not provide for interest on excess duty paid or reimbursement of demurrage charges, aligning with the statutory provisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Dec 2011 18:06:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133244" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (5) TMI 284 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96185</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the appeals for refund of excess duty and demurrage charges. It was held that the Appellant, although entitled to the refund due to the accepted value of goods, failed to follow the prescribed procedures under Section 27 of the Customs Act for refund claims. Additionally, the Tribunal emphasized that the Customs Act does not provide for interest on excess duty paid or reimbursement of demurrage charges, aligning with the statutory provisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96185</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>