<?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>2014 (2) TMI 830 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244236</link>
    <description>Under the customs refund notification, an importer who paid special additional duty despite an available exemption could still claim refund if the prescribed conditions, including subsequent sale on payment of VAT and production of required documents, were satisfied. The absence of an express prohibition in section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 meant the importer was not compelled to avail the exemption, and the earlier contrary view was not accepted. The refund claim was also not treated as a reassessment of the Bill of Entry, so a prior challenge to the original assessment was not required. The Revenue appeals were rejected and the appellate refund relief was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2014 18:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346693" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 830 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244236</link>
      <description>Under the customs refund notification, an importer who paid special additional duty despite an available exemption could still claim refund if the prescribed conditions, including subsequent sale on payment of VAT and production of required documents, were satisfied. The absence of an express prohibition in section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 meant the importer was not compelled to avail the exemption, and the earlier contrary view was not accepted. The refund claim was also not treated as a reassessment of the Bill of Entry, so a prior challenge to the original assessment was not required. The Revenue appeals were rejected and the appellate refund relief was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244236</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>