<?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>2013 (9) TMI 1152 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190111</link>
    <description>A quantified customs demand requiring payment within three days was treated as a notice of demand under the Customs Act for purposes of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. Because the communication specifically demanded duty and interest and left no ambiguity about payment, it fell within the scheme&#039;s exclusionary framework for cases where a notice of demand under an indirect tax enactment had been issued. The notice date of 31-3-1998 was within the relevant cut-off, so the exception in Section 95(ii)(b) applied and the scheme remained applicable. The challenge to that applicability therefore failed, and the order sustaining the scheme&#039;s application was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2017 17:06:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=457678" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 1152 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190111</link>
      <description>A quantified customs demand requiring payment within three days was treated as a notice of demand under the Customs Act for purposes of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. Because the communication specifically demanded duty and interest and left no ambiguity about payment, it fell within the scheme&#039;s exclusionary framework for cases where a notice of demand under an indirect tax enactment had been issued. The notice date of 31-3-1998 was within the relevant cut-off, so the exception in Section 95(ii)(b) applied and the scheme remained applicable. The challenge to that applicability therefore failed, and the order sustaining the scheme&#039;s application was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190111</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>