<?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 (10) TMI 186 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33912</link>
    <description>Refund of customs duty and CVD could not be granted while the assessment order remained operative and unchallenged. The bill of entry reflected a claimed exemption from basic customs duty and CVD, but the assessing officer allowed only the basic customs duty exemption and assessed duty accordingly. A refund proceeding could not be used to reopen that assessment or treat the denial of CVD exemption as a clerical error. The settled principle applied was that an assessment binds the parties unless it is set aside or modified in appropriate appellate proceedings, so the refund authority could not effectively sit in appeal over a subsisting assessment. The refund claim was therefore not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72540" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 186 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33912</link>
      <description>Refund of customs duty and CVD could not be granted while the assessment order remained operative and unchallenged. The bill of entry reflected a claimed exemption from basic customs duty and CVD, but the assessing officer allowed only the basic customs duty exemption and assessed duty accordingly. A refund proceeding could not be used to reopen that assessment or treat the denial of CVD exemption as a clerical error. The settled principle applied was that an assessment binds the parties unless it is set aside or modified in appropriate appellate proceedings, so the refund authority could not effectively sit in appeal over a subsisting assessment. The refund claim was therefore not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33912</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>