<?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>2019 (12) TMI 955 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390072</link>
    <description>Refund entitlement was treated as dependent on the final determination of classification and duty liability. Where the appellate authority had directed a fresh test of the goods and a consequential final order was still awaited, the dispute remained unresolved. In that situation, the writ petition seeking refund was not considered fit for grant at that stage and was rejected as premature.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Dec 2019 12:53:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=598142" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (12) TMI 955 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390072</link>
      <description>Refund entitlement was treated as dependent on the final determination of classification and duty liability. Where the appellate authority had directed a fresh test of the goods and a consequential final order was still awaited, the dispute remained unresolved. In that situation, the writ petition seeking refund was not considered fit for grant at that stage and was rejected as premature.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390072</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>