<?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 (6) TMI 1254 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439680</link>
    <description>Customs duty foregone under EPCG licences became recoverable after cancellation of the licences, and the governing notifications required the importer to pay the duty along with applicable interest when the notification conditions were not fulfilled. Interest waiver was therefore unavailable. However, the interest computation had to be recalculated from the legally relevant date of consent for encashment of the bank guarantee, since the record showed that recovery through encashment was requested on 02/01/2014 and that date governed delay for interest purposes. The liability to pay interest was upheld, but the adjudicating authority was directed to re-quantify interest by treating 03/01/2014 as the realization date.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jun 2023 09:34:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=718113" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (6) TMI 1254 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439680</link>
      <description>Customs duty foregone under EPCG licences became recoverable after cancellation of the licences, and the governing notifications required the importer to pay the duty along with applicable interest when the notification conditions were not fulfilled. Interest waiver was therefore unavailable. However, the interest computation had to be recalculated from the legally relevant date of consent for encashment of the bank guarantee, since the record showed that recovery through encashment was requested on 02/01/2014 and that date governed delay for interest purposes. The liability to pay interest was upheld, but the adjudicating authority was directed to re-quantify interest by treating 03/01/2014 as the realization date.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439680</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>