<?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>2013 (9) TMI 829 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237397</link>
    <description>Where customs exemption notifications contain no express prohibition, an importer may be allowed to claim more than one exemption simultaneously, subject to compliance with the notification conditions. In this matter, the Bombay High Court granted interim protection to the importer pending the Central Board of Excise and Customs&#039; consideration of the dispute, permitting simultaneous benefit of both exemption notifications for coal imports from Indonesia. The relief was conditional on furnishing a bank guarantee for 20% of the differential duty and a bond for the balance, while the substantive controversy on entitlement was left for administrative decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199804" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 829 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237397</link>
      <description>Where customs exemption notifications contain no express prohibition, an importer may be allowed to claim more than one exemption simultaneously, subject to compliance with the notification conditions. In this matter, the Bombay High Court granted interim protection to the importer pending the Central Board of Excise and Customs&#039; consideration of the dispute, permitting simultaneous benefit of both exemption notifications for coal imports from Indonesia. The relief was conditional on furnishing a bank guarantee for 20% of the differential duty and a bond for the balance, while the substantive controversy on entitlement was left for administrative decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237397</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>