<?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>2008 (7) TMI 172 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31699</link>
    <description>Interest cannot be levied on differential duty demanded for breach of EPCG notification conditions unless the statute or notification expressly authorises it, so the interest demand was set aside. Once the importer became liable for and paid the differential duty after failure to fulfil the export obligation, confiscation of the capital goods, redemption fine and penalty were held not to survive, and those consequences were also set aside. The duty demand itself remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70345" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 172 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31699</link>
      <description>Interest cannot be levied on differential duty demanded for breach of EPCG notification conditions unless the statute or notification expressly authorises it, so the interest demand was set aside. Once the importer became liable for and paid the differential duty after failure to fulfil the export obligation, confiscation of the capital goods, redemption fine and penalty were held not to survive, and those consequences were also set aside. The duty demand itself remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31699</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>