<?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 1196 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173340</link>
    <description>Importers of brushless fans were treated as traders for the purpose of applying the packaged commodities regime and assessing additional customs duty on the retail sale price basis, because the goods were imported for bulk sale rather than as industrial or institutional consumer supplies. The stay order also noted that the limitation issue was prima facie arguable, as two views were possible and the assessee could not be faulted for adopting the favourable interpretation, so the extended period was not readily invocable. On pre-deposit, the tribunal found no convincing proof of financial hardship and directed a partial deposit as a condition for stay of the balance demand and recovery pending appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2015 06:52:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397088" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 1196 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173340</link>
      <description>Importers of brushless fans were treated as traders for the purpose of applying the packaged commodities regime and assessing additional customs duty on the retail sale price basis, because the goods were imported for bulk sale rather than as industrial or institutional consumer supplies. The stay order also noted that the limitation issue was prima facie arguable, as two views were possible and the assessee could not be faulted for adopting the favourable interpretation, so the extended period was not readily invocable. On pre-deposit, the tribunal found no convincing proof of financial hardship and directed a partial deposit as a condition for stay of the balance demand and recovery pending appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173340</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>