<?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>2020 (1) TMI 438 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390825</link>
    <description>Provisional customs assessments kept pending for an unduly long period, despite submission of required documents and repeated requests for finalisation, could not justify continued withholding of the importer&#039;s refund. The Board&#039;s circular required provisional assessment and investigation to be completed within four months of receipt of the reply, and a departmental communication recorded that the cess and additional duty issue on imported coal had already been settled, requiring finalisation accordingly. On that basis, the Department&#039;s contention that no time limit applied was rejected, and the importer was held entitled to refund of the deposit with statutory interest for delayed payment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2020 12:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=600090" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 438 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390825</link>
      <description>Provisional customs assessments kept pending for an unduly long period, despite submission of required documents and repeated requests for finalisation, could not justify continued withholding of the importer&#039;s refund. The Board&#039;s circular required provisional assessment and investigation to be completed within four months of receipt of the reply, and a departmental communication recorded that the cess and additional duty issue on imported coal had already been settled, requiring finalisation accordingly. On that basis, the Department&#039;s contention that no time limit applied was rejected, and the importer was held entitled to refund of the deposit with statutory interest for delayed payment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390825</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>