<?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>2009 (6) TMI 838 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126695</link>
    <description>The case involved an importer failing to provide necessary documents under Project Import Regulations, leading to a demand for differential duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter for finalizing assessment under Regulation 7, rejecting the demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing compliance with regulations for project imports and the importance of submitting required documents for assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 17:05:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163586" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 838 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126695</link>
      <description>The case involved an importer failing to provide necessary documents under Project Import Regulations, leading to a demand for differential duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter for finalizing assessment under Regulation 7, rejecting the demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing compliance with regulations for project imports and the importance of submitting required documents for assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126695</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>