<?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 196 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32781</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the second show cause notice for customs duty on an imported CT Scanner was barred by res judicata, as the issue had already been adjudicated. The duty demand was found to be time-barred under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, as it was issued more than eight years after the goods&#039; clearance. The Tribunal set aside the duty demand of Rs. 60,91,872, ruling it was not enforceable and not in accordance with the law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71419" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 196 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32781</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the second show cause notice for customs duty on an imported CT Scanner was barred by res judicata, as the issue had already been adjudicated. The duty demand was found to be time-barred under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, as it was issued more than eight years after the goods&#039; clearance. The Tribunal set aside the duty demand of Rs. 60,91,872, ruling it was not enforceable and not in accordance with the law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32781</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>