<?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>2008 (1) TMI 239 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4644</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding an import duty refund claim under Notification No.83/98-Cus. The appellant&#039;s claim was rejected due to the application of Section 15(1)(a) of the Customs Act, which ties duty rates to the Bill of Entry date. As the Bill of Entry was filed before the Notification date, the Tribunal upheld the rejection, emphasizing the statutory requirements of Section 15(1)(a) and its proviso. The decision was made on 29.1.08.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43985" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 239 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4644</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding an import duty refund claim under Notification No.83/98-Cus. The appellant&#039;s claim was rejected due to the application of Section 15(1)(a) of the Customs Act, which ties duty rates to the Bill of Entry date. As the Bill of Entry was filed before the Notification date, the Tribunal upheld the rejection, emphasizing the statutory requirements of Section 15(1)(a) and its proviso. The decision was made on 29.1.08.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4644</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>