<?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 (7) TMI 1788 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294615</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the orders confirming the demand of outstanding cost recovery charges and imposing penalties under the 2009 Regulations. It held that the regulations did not authorize the recovery of such charges or penalties in the manner ordered by the Commissioner. The appeals were allowed, emphasizing that the Commissioner&#039;s actions were illegal as the regulations only required the custodian to bear costs without specifying a method for recovering unpaid charges.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2021 21:02:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=642534" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 1788 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294615</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the orders confirming the demand of outstanding cost recovery charges and imposing penalties under the 2009 Regulations. It held that the regulations did not authorize the recovery of such charges or penalties in the manner ordered by the Commissioner. The appeals were allowed, emphasizing that the Commissioner&#039;s actions were illegal as the regulations only required the custodian to bear costs without specifying a method for recovering unpaid charges.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294615</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>