<?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>2006 (1) TMI 315 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116948</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant regarding the validity of duty payment through a DEPB license. It clarified that Section 28 of the Customs Act applies to duty recovery on imports or exports, with liability extending to the importer or exporter of the consignment in question. The proviso mentioning &quot;importer for exporter&quot; was interpreted narrowly, applying only to the importer or exporter of the dutiable consignment, not to other parties. The judgment was issued on January 20, 2006.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:31:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153946" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (1) TMI 315 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116948</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant regarding the validity of duty payment through a DEPB license. It clarified that Section 28 of the Customs Act applies to duty recovery on imports or exports, with liability extending to the importer or exporter of the consignment in question. The proviso mentioning &quot;importer for exporter&quot; was interpreted narrowly, applying only to the importer or exporter of the dutiable consignment, not to other parties. The judgment was issued on January 20, 2006.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116948</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>