<?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>2016 (9) TMI 778 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332517</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions challenging the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission&#039;s order. The Court upheld the levy of Additional Duty of Excise at 8%, ruling that the petitioners&#039; prior concession estopped them from challenging the order. The Court found the Settlement Commission&#039;s decision lawful, affirming the duty calculation including Basic Customs Duty, CVD at 16%, ADE at 8%, and Cess at 0.05%. The judgment emphasized that the ADE at 8% was correctly imposed under the Customs Tariff Act, and the petitioners&#039; arguments lacked merit for overturning the Settlement Commission&#039;s ruling.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2017 13:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=441592" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 778 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332517</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions challenging the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission&#039;s order. The Court upheld the levy of Additional Duty of Excise at 8%, ruling that the petitioners&#039; prior concession estopped them from challenging the order. The Court found the Settlement Commission&#039;s decision lawful, affirming the duty calculation including Basic Customs Duty, CVD at 16%, ADE at 8%, and Cess at 0.05%. The judgment emphasized that the ADE at 8% was correctly imposed under the Customs Tariff Act, and the petitioners&#039; arguments lacked merit for overturning the Settlement Commission&#039;s ruling.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332517</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>