<?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 (5) TMI 317 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118401</link>
    <description>Imported particle counters used to determine the number of particles in gas were classified by functional character under heading 90.26 rather than 90.29, and differential duty was to be worked out on that basis. Interest could not be recovered because the exemption notification contained no express enabling provision for such recovery during the relevant period. Confiscation and penalty under the EPCG scheme were not sustainable where failure to fulfil export obligations was not found to be a deliberate violation, the importer had furnished a bank guarantee, and differential duty had been paid; the appeals were therefore allowed and the impugned order set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2012 14:27:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155398" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 317 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118401</link>
      <description>Imported particle counters used to determine the number of particles in gas were classified by functional character under heading 90.26 rather than 90.29, and differential duty was to be worked out on that basis. Interest could not be recovered because the exemption notification contained no express enabling provision for such recovery during the relevant period. Confiscation and penalty under the EPCG scheme were not sustainable where failure to fulfil export obligations was not found to be a deliberate violation, the importer had furnished a bank guarantee, and differential duty had been paid; the appeals were therefore allowed and the impugned order set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118401</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>