<?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 (5) TMI 458 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110153</link>
    <description>Additional duty of customs under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act is chargeable only when a like article produced in India would attract excise duty. On the facts discussed, vessels imported for breaking up fell within the same tariff language as the corresponding indigenous article, and the excise exemption under Notification No. 167/86-C.E. meant the domestic article carried no duty. The Budget Speech was treated as a relevant interpretive aid supporting the ship-breaking exemption, and the rule favouring the assessee where two tax interpretations are possible reinforced that view. The demand for additional duty was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:47:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147169" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 458 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110153</link>
      <description>Additional duty of customs under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act is chargeable only when a like article produced in India would attract excise duty. On the facts discussed, vessels imported for breaking up fell within the same tariff language as the corresponding indigenous article, and the excise exemption under Notification No. 167/86-C.E. meant the domestic article carried no duty. The Budget Speech was treated as a relevant interpretive aid supporting the ship-breaking exemption, and the rule favouring the assessee where two tax interpretations are possible reinforced that view. The demand for additional duty was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110153</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>