<?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 (10) TMI 321 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120295</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the impugned order allowing the refund of a security deposit made for provisional assessment of goods at the time of import. It was clarified that Section 27 of the Customs Act does not apply to such refunds, and the refund should be made suo motu if duty paid was found to be in excess. The Revenue&#039;s stay application was dismissed as they failed to establish grounds for staying the operation of the order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:47:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157291" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (10) TMI 321 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120295</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the impugned order allowing the refund of a security deposit made for provisional assessment of goods at the time of import. It was clarified that Section 27 of the Customs Act does not apply to such refunds, and the refund should be made suo motu if duty paid was found to be in excess. The Revenue&#039;s stay application was dismissed as they failed to establish grounds for staying the operation of the order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120295</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>