<?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>2021 (3) TMI 355 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405027</link>
    <description>Refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus could not be denied merely because imported goods were sold before the Customs out of charge order. The rejection rested only on that timing ground, but earlier Tribunal decisions had already settled that prior sale, by itself, is not a valid basis to refuse refund where the claim is otherwise maintainable. The denial was therefore unsustainable, and the assessee&#039;s refund claim succeeded on this issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2024 11:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=638491" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (3) TMI 355 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405027</link>
      <description>Refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus could not be denied merely because imported goods were sold before the Customs out of charge order. The rejection rested only on that timing ground, but earlier Tribunal decisions had already settled that prior sale, by itself, is not a valid basis to refuse refund where the claim is otherwise maintainable. The denial was therefore unsustainable, and the assessee&#039;s refund claim succeeded on this issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405027</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>