<?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 694 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106875</link>
    <description>The court held that the authorities erred in charging the enhanced duty from the petitioner regarding the import of RBD Palmolein. The writ petition was allowed, and the authorities were directed to charge duty based on the rate applicable on the date of presenting the bill of entry, which was 25th July, 1981.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:36:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143895" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 694 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106875</link>
      <description>The court held that the authorities erred in charging the enhanced duty from the petitioner regarding the import of RBD Palmolein. The writ petition was allowed, and the authorities were directed to charge duty based on the rate applicable on the date of presenting the bill of entry, which was 25th July, 1981.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106875</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>