<?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 (7) TMI 1195 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440922</link>
    <description>A refund under the Special Additional Duty regime was unavailable because the refund condition required payment in cash, and payment through scrips did not satisfy that prerequisite. The Kerala HC also held that publication of the circular on the department&#039;s official website amounted to sufficient public notice, so the absence of a separate local notice did not aid the importer. As the condition precedent for refund was not met, the refund claim was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2024 11:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=720887" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (7) TMI 1195 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440922</link>
      <description>A refund under the Special Additional Duty regime was unavailable because the refund condition required payment in cash, and payment through scrips did not satisfy that prerequisite. The Kerala HC also held that publication of the circular on the department&#039;s official website amounted to sufficient public notice, so the absence of a separate local notice did not aid the importer. As the condition precedent for refund was not met, the refund claim was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440922</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>