<?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 (12) TMI 515 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335870</link>
    <description>Rubber cess was held not leviable on imported natural rubber where the demand was raised in the manner adopted by Revenue. The Tribunal followed its earlier rulings that cess under the Rubber Act is not recoverable on such imports on the stated basis, and found the demand unsustainable. It also noted that the position under the Advance Authorisation Scheme supported the assessee&#039;s stand. The impugned demand was therefore rejected as lacking merit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=451249" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 515 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335870</link>
      <description>Rubber cess was held not leviable on imported natural rubber where the demand was raised in the manner adopted by Revenue. The Tribunal followed its earlier rulings that cess under the Rubber Act is not recoverable on such imports on the stated basis, and found the demand unsustainable. It also noted that the position under the Advance Authorisation Scheme supported the assessee&#039;s stand. The impugned demand was therefore rejected as lacking merit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335870</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>