<?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 (2) TMI 675 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170689</link>
    <description>Publication in the Official Gazette is sufficient to bring a tariff-value notification under Section 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 into force. The Court treated the attested Gazette copy as official evidence carrying a presumption of genuineness under the Evidence Act and held that, absent cogent rebuttal, delayed public availability did not postpone operation of the notification. It distinguished exemption notifications requiring further public offering from tariff-value notifications, which have no such additional requirement. The notification was therefore effective from 3-8-2001, and the challenge to the differential customs duty demand failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:18:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=387224" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (2) TMI 675 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170689</link>
      <description>Publication in the Official Gazette is sufficient to bring a tariff-value notification under Section 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 into force. The Court treated the attested Gazette copy as official evidence carrying a presumption of genuineness under the Evidence Act and held that, absent cogent rebuttal, delayed public availability did not postpone operation of the notification. It distinguished exemption notifications requiring further public offering from tariff-value notifications, which have no such additional requirement. The notification was therefore effective from 3-8-2001, and the challenge to the differential customs duty demand failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170689</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>