<?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 (7) TMI 509 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99647</link>
    <description>A drawback claim under Section 74 was examined against the time-bar objection in Rule 8(2) of the Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995. The record suggested that the claim had been filed soon after export, returned because provisional assessment of the imported goods was not finalised, and pursued again after finalisation of assessment in 1995. As the earlier filing, affidavit support, and effect of provisional assessment were not properly verified by the original authority, the limitation issue required fresh examination. The rejection on limitation was therefore not sustained for final disposal, and the matter was remanded for decision on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2012 19:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136699" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (7) TMI 509 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99647</link>
      <description>A drawback claim under Section 74 was examined against the time-bar objection in Rule 8(2) of the Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995. The record suggested that the claim had been filed soon after export, returned because provisional assessment of the imported goods was not finalised, and pursued again after finalisation of assessment in 1995. As the earlier filing, affidavit support, and effect of provisional assessment were not properly verified by the original authority, the limitation issue required fresh examination. The rejection on limitation was therefore not sustained for final disposal, and the matter was remanded for decision on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99647</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>