<?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>2003 (2) TMI 359 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108842</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision against the Appellant in a case concerning compliance with Notification No. 279/83-Cus, emphasizing the continuous obligation to provide specified free treatment percentages and bed reservations. The Tribunal rejected the Appellant&#039;s arguments, citing precedents and enforcing duty realization due to non-compliance. Additionally, the Tribunal dismissed the Appellant&#039;s challenge regarding the time-barring of the duty demand, considering the ongoing nature of the obligation. Concerns raised by the Appellant regarding the redemption fine and penalty imposition were also rejected, with the Tribunal deeming the amounts justified given the substantial duty benefit availed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:59:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145859" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (2) TMI 359 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108842</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision against the Appellant in a case concerning compliance with Notification No. 279/83-Cus, emphasizing the continuous obligation to provide specified free treatment percentages and bed reservations. The Tribunal rejected the Appellant&#039;s arguments, citing precedents and enforcing duty realization due to non-compliance. Additionally, the Tribunal dismissed the Appellant&#039;s challenge regarding the time-barring of the duty demand, considering the ongoing nature of the obligation. Concerns raised by the Appellant regarding the redemption fine and penalty imposition were also rejected, with the Tribunal deeming the amounts justified given the substantial duty benefit availed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108842</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>