<?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 (4) TMI 719 - CESTAT, Bangalore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209642</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal with consequential relief, setting aside the impugned order. It held that the refund claim was not premature as the appellant had paid under protest. The appellant was found not liable for customs duty or penalty as they were not the importers. The amount paid should be refunded since the duty was already collected from the importers. The Tribunal implied the appellant is entitled to interest for the delayed refund.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183088" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 719 - CESTAT, Bangalore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209642</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal with consequential relief, setting aside the impugned order. It held that the refund claim was not premature as the appellant had paid under protest. The appellant was found not liable for customs duty or penalty as they were not the importers. The amount paid should be refunded since the duty was already collected from the importers. The Tribunal implied the appellant is entitled to interest for the delayed refund.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209642</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>