<?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>2011 (2) TMI 538 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206545</link>
    <description>Custodians of CFS/ICD facilities were required under the Customs regulatory regime to bear the full cost of Customs officers posted for supervision, and that obligation extended to enhanced cost recovery charges arising from retrospective pay revision. The circulars and 2009 regulations contemplated recovery of actual expenditure from the custodian, so the revised salary liability caused by the 6th Pay Commission remained recoverable as part of the department&#039;s actual cost. The regime treated the charge as cost recovery for services rendered, not as an impermissible levy, and a custodian could not avoid the additional burden created by retrospective fixation of pay.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Nov 2011 08:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180033" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (2) TMI 538 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206545</link>
      <description>Custodians of CFS/ICD facilities were required under the Customs regulatory regime to bear the full cost of Customs officers posted for supervision, and that obligation extended to enhanced cost recovery charges arising from retrospective pay revision. The circulars and 2009 regulations contemplated recovery of actual expenditure from the custodian, so the revised salary liability caused by the 6th Pay Commission remained recoverable as part of the department&#039;s actual cost. The regime treated the charge as cost recovery for services rendered, not as an impermissible levy, and a custodian could not avoid the additional burden created by retrospective fixation of pay.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206545</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>