<?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 1267 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186699</link>
    <description>The Court ruled in favor of Simplex, quashing the recovery order demanding the refund of Terminal Excise Duty (TED). It held that the Policy Interpretation Committee (PIC) exceeded its authority in seeking recovery post-refund, emphasizing that reviews of refunds are permissible only under Section 16 of the Foreign Trade Policy. The judgment reaffirmed the statutory framework governing refund reviews, limiting authorities&#039; power to re-determine benefits already approved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2017 12:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=442998" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 1267 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186699</link>
      <description>The Court ruled in favor of Simplex, quashing the recovery order demanding the refund of Terminal Excise Duty (TED). It held that the Policy Interpretation Committee (PIC) exceeded its authority in seeking recovery post-refund, emphasizing that reviews of refunds are permissible only under Section 16 of the Foreign Trade Policy. The judgment reaffirmed the statutory framework governing refund reviews, limiting authorities&#039; power to re-determine benefits already approved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186699</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>