<?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>2005 (3) TMI 600 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115323</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the order rejecting the Revenue appeal in a case involving duty demand on damaged goods under Sec. 72(1)(d) of the Customs Act. It was held that the provision did not apply as the goods were properly accounted for before being damaged in transit. Previous judgments cited by the Revenue were deemed distinguishable, and the Tribunal ruled that duty payment on waste applied in this scenario. The department&#039;s argument regarding insurance claims on damaged goods was dismissed. The Tribunal affirmed the decision, stating the demand under Sec. 72(1)(d) was unsustainable due to the goods being properly recorded but damaged during transit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 10:58:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152322" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 600 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115323</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the order rejecting the Revenue appeal in a case involving duty demand on damaged goods under Sec. 72(1)(d) of the Customs Act. It was held that the provision did not apply as the goods were properly accounted for before being damaged in transit. Previous judgments cited by the Revenue were deemed distinguishable, and the Tribunal ruled that duty payment on waste applied in this scenario. The department&#039;s argument regarding insurance claims on damaged goods was dismissed. The Tribunal affirmed the decision, stating the demand under Sec. 72(1)(d) was unsustainable due to the goods being properly recorded but damaged during transit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115323</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>