<?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>2002 (8) TMI 539 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105696</link>
    <description>A notice issued for recovery under the Customs Act was not independently appealable where the underlying duty-demand order had already attained finality. The notice followed an unchallenged confirmation of demand after denial of exemption for imported hospital equipment, so it was treated as a recovery step only, not a fresh adjudicatory order. On that basis, the appeal was held not maintainable and was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2012 11:31:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142734" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 539 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105696</link>
      <description>A notice issued for recovery under the Customs Act was not independently appealable where the underlying duty-demand order had already attained finality. The notice followed an unchallenged confirmation of demand after denial of exemption for imported hospital equipment, so it was treated as a recovery step only, not a fresh adjudicatory order. On that basis, the appeal was held not maintainable and was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105696</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>