<?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>1983 (2) TMI 304 - CEGAT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166039</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT Madras rejected the appeal concerning the refund of duty on shortages in dry fit batteries packages. The Tribunal determined that sec. 13 of the Customs Act, 1962 applied to the situation, where goods were not available due to pilferage, rather than sec. 23. It emphasized the need to interpret and apply the provisions correctly, restricting sec. 23 to situations other than pilferage. The presence of a Customs Officer during the survey did not bind the Government to accept findings contrary to statutory provisions. The claim for refund was denied as the discovery of non-availability of goods occurred after the clearance order was issued.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:50:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363628" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (2) TMI 304 - CEGAT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166039</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT Madras rejected the appeal concerning the refund of duty on shortages in dry fit batteries packages. The Tribunal determined that sec. 13 of the Customs Act, 1962 applied to the situation, where goods were not available due to pilferage, rather than sec. 23. It emphasized the need to interpret and apply the provisions correctly, restricting sec. 23 to situations other than pilferage. The presence of a Customs Officer during the survey did not bind the Government to accept findings contrary to statutory provisions. The claim for refund was denied as the discovery of non-availability of goods occurred after the clearance order was issued.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>