<?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>2007 (6) TMI 393 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121925</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI allowed the appeal of the appellants, who imported components for &quot;Auto Cone Winders&quot; subject to levy of Special Additional Duty (SAD). The Tribunal held that the appellants were not at fault for the delay caused by a strike, leading to the levy of SAD upon entry inward of the vessel. It was determined that the appellants should not be liable to pay SAD under such circumstances, emphasizing that the law does not compel a person to do the impossible. The Tribunal directed the original authority to examine the refund claim considering unjust enrichment, ensuring compliance with legal procedures and principles of natural justice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Aug 2012 12:32:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=158917" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (6) TMI 393 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121925</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI allowed the appeal of the appellants, who imported components for &quot;Auto Cone Winders&quot; subject to levy of Special Additional Duty (SAD). The Tribunal held that the appellants were not at fault for the delay caused by a strike, leading to the levy of SAD upon entry inward of the vessel. It was determined that the appellants should not be liable to pay SAD under such circumstances, emphasizing that the law does not compel a person to do the impossible. The Tribunal directed the original authority to examine the refund claim considering unjust enrichment, ensuring compliance with legal procedures and principles of natural justice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121925</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>