<?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 (10) TMI 381 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117043</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the demand for Customs Duty on re-imported goods due to delay in re-export beyond the period allowed by Notification 158/95-Cus. The decision was based on interpreting the notification&#039;s provisions and relevant legal precedents, including a Supreme Court ruling. The appellant&#039;s argument on procedural conditions in the notification was rejected, leading to the appeal&#039;s dismissal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:38:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154041" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 381 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117043</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the demand for Customs Duty on re-imported goods due to delay in re-export beyond the period allowed by Notification 158/95-Cus. The decision was based on interpreting the notification&#039;s provisions and relevant legal precedents, including a Supreme Court ruling. The appellant&#039;s argument on procedural conditions in the notification was rejected, leading to the appeal&#039;s dismissal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117043</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>