<?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 (6) TMI 488 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106410</link>
    <description>Appellate contentions on the rate and quantum of duty on a vessel, and on exemption notifications, could not be raised where those matters were not included in the show cause notice, the original adjudication, or the cross-objection before the Commissioner (Appeals). The dispute before the original authority concerned only classification and duty liability of moveable gears, stores and bunkers, and the vessel&#039;s assessment had already attained finality. Because appellate proceedings cannot extend beyond the controversy actually put in issue, the new pleas were not entertainable and the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly declined to consider them.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:56:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143444" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (6) TMI 488 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106410</link>
      <description>Appellate contentions on the rate and quantum of duty on a vessel, and on exemption notifications, could not be raised where those matters were not included in the show cause notice, the original adjudication, or the cross-objection before the Commissioner (Appeals). The dispute before the original authority concerned only classification and duty liability of moveable gears, stores and bunkers, and the vessel&#039;s assessment had already attained finality. Because appellate proceedings cannot extend beyond the controversy actually put in issue, the new pleas were not entertainable and the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly declined to consider them.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106410</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>