<?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>2010 (7) TMI 768 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209546</link>
    <description>Customs duty could not be levied on supplies made by a Domestic Tariff Area unit to an SEZ unit for authorised operations because the Customs Act charging provisions apply only to goods crossing India&#039;s territorial limits. The SEZ Act provides exemptions and concessions but does not create an independent charging provision, and the Section 53 deeming fiction cannot be extended to impose tax liability. The non-obstante clause in Section 51 operates only where there is an actual inconsistency, which was absent here. Delegated rules could not enlarge the statutory charging power or justify collection of duty or bank guarantees without legislative authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2013 11:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=182993" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 768 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209546</link>
      <description>Customs duty could not be levied on supplies made by a Domestic Tariff Area unit to an SEZ unit for authorised operations because the Customs Act charging provisions apply only to goods crossing India&#039;s territorial limits. The SEZ Act provides exemptions and concessions but does not create an independent charging provision, and the Section 53 deeming fiction cannot be extended to impose tax liability. The non-obstante clause in Section 51 operates only where there is an actual inconsistency, which was absent here. Delegated rules could not enlarge the statutory charging power or justify collection of duty or bank guarantees without legislative authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209546</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>