<?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>2023 (1) TMI 113 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432366</link>
    <description>The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case for interim protection in a writ challenge to a customs notification and a communication denying concessional duty for solar project equipment. It noted that the project was already registered under the Project Import Regulations, 1986 and that earlier communications had indicated eligibility under the concessional customs duty framework. The Court held that the balance of convenience favoured the petitioner because refusal of protection could disrupt the import process and the project, while any prejudice to the revenue was financial and could be safeguarded by the bond and bank guarantee already furnished. Interim protection was granted, with no precipitate action to be taken at the import stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2023 08:29:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=700632" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (1) TMI 113 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432366</link>
      <description>The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case for interim protection in a writ challenge to a customs notification and a communication denying concessional duty for solar project equipment. It noted that the project was already registered under the Project Import Regulations, 1986 and that earlier communications had indicated eligibility under the concessional customs duty framework. The Court held that the balance of convenience favoured the petitioner because refusal of protection could disrupt the import process and the project, while any prejudice to the revenue was financial and could be safeguarded by the bond and bank guarantee already furnished. Interim protection was granted, with no precipitate action to be taken at the import stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432366</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>