<?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>2015 (11) TMI 1235 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268426</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Commissioner and CESTAT that duty demands prior to 1999 for &#039;rejects&#039; of wool fabrics and polywool fabrics were not applicable due to the retrospective amendment of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975. The Court cited previous cases and affirmed that the retrospective nature of the amendment precluded the duty imposition. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, emphasizing the consistent interpretation by the Tribunal and previous cases in similar matters.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=406543" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 1235 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268426</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Commissioner and CESTAT that duty demands prior to 1999 for &#039;rejects&#039; of wool fabrics and polywool fabrics were not applicable due to the retrospective amendment of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975. The Court cited previous cases and affirmed that the retrospective nature of the amendment precluded the duty imposition. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, emphasizing the consistent interpretation by the Tribunal and previous cases in similar matters.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268426</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>