<?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 (8) TMI 105 - HIGH COURT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31930</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the excess customs duty paid by the respondent was not passed on to the buyer. As the contracted price remained unchanged despite the duty payment, the court found no evidence of passing on the duty incidence. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the respondent was entitled to a refund as the excess duty was absorbed by them and not transferred to the buyer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70575" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 105 - HIGH COURT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31930</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the excess customs duty paid by the respondent was not passed on to the buyer. As the contracted price remained unchanged despite the duty payment, the court found no evidence of passing on the duty incidence. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the respondent was entitled to a refund as the excess duty was absorbed by them and not transferred to the buyer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31930</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>