<?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>2009 (4) TMI 94 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33782</link>
    <description>Amounts deposited before issuance of the show cause notice were treated as part of the unpaid demand for purposes of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme because Section 87(m)(ii)(b), read with its Explanation, covers duty, interest, fine or penalty forming the subject matter of a notice issued on or before 31 March 1998 and remaining unpaid on the declaration date. The notice itself proposed adjustment of the quantified duty demand against the deposits, so the sums had not been adjusted when the declaration was made. Whether the deposits were voluntary or coerced was therefore immaterial. The declaration was held maintainable and the rejection order without jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72411" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 94 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33782</link>
      <description>Amounts deposited before issuance of the show cause notice were treated as part of the unpaid demand for purposes of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme because Section 87(m)(ii)(b), read with its Explanation, covers duty, interest, fine or penalty forming the subject matter of a notice issued on or before 31 March 1998 and remaining unpaid on the declaration date. The notice itself proposed adjustment of the quantified duty demand against the deposits, so the sums had not been adjusted when the declaration was made. Whether the deposits were voluntary or coerced was therefore immaterial. The declaration was held maintainable and the rejection order without jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33782</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>