<?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 (6) TMI 652 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213199</link>
    <description>For clearances by a 100% export oriented unit into the domestic tariff area before 16.09.1999, Notification No. 2/95-CE was applied on its unamended text, so the duty payable was limited to 50% of the basic customs duty under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962. Countervailing duty and special additional duty under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 were not to be added for that earlier period, because the wider wording introduced by Notification No. 38/99-CE operated prospectively. As the duty demand had to be re-quantified on this basis, the penalty based on the original confirmation could not stand and was set aside. The matter was remitted for fresh determination with consequential relief, including refund of excess duty if any.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 09:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186600" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (6) TMI 652 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213199</link>
      <description>For clearances by a 100% export oriented unit into the domestic tariff area before 16.09.1999, Notification No. 2/95-CE was applied on its unamended text, so the duty payable was limited to 50% of the basic customs duty under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962. Countervailing duty and special additional duty under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 were not to be added for that earlier period, because the wider wording introduced by Notification No. 38/99-CE operated prospectively. As the duty demand had to be re-quantified on this basis, the penalty based on the original confirmation could not stand and was set aside. The matter was remitted for fresh determination with consequential relief, including refund of excess duty if any.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213199</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>