<?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 (7) TMI 183 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249146</link>
    <description>Refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus was unavailable because the invoices did not carry the prescribed certificate that no credit of additional duty of customs under section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 would be admissible. The notification&#039;s express condition had to be strictly satisfied, and omission of that certificate meant the claimant failed to meet the mandatory requirement. The refund claim was therefore not admissible and was rightly rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2014 11:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=358865" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 183 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249146</link>
      <description>Refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus was unavailable because the invoices did not carry the prescribed certificate that no credit of additional duty of customs under section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 would be admissible. The notification&#039;s express condition had to be strictly satisfied, and omission of that certificate meant the claimant failed to meet the mandatory requirement. The refund claim was therefore not admissible and was rightly rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249146</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>