<?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 (10) TMI 446 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333426</link>
    <description>The tribunal held that the appellant, a Container Freight Station, was entitled to exemption from payment of cost recovery charges post-March 2010 as they had achieved benchmark performance within the specified time frame. The tribunal found the continuous demand for charges unjustified due to the Revenue&#039;s failure to examine the waiver claim. Additionally, the appellant was not responsible for non-payment as the Revenue had not provided a clear calculation of the charges, and no specific rates or manner of payment were prescribed under the 2009 regulations. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, granting relief to the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2016 13:12:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=444555" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 446 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333426</link>
      <description>The tribunal held that the appellant, a Container Freight Station, was entitled to exemption from payment of cost recovery charges post-March 2010 as they had achieved benchmark performance within the specified time frame. The tribunal found the continuous demand for charges unjustified due to the Revenue&#039;s failure to examine the waiver claim. Additionally, the appellant was not responsible for non-payment as the Revenue had not provided a clear calculation of the charges, and no specific rates or manner of payment were prescribed under the 2009 regulations. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, granting relief to the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333426</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>