<?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 (2) TMI 168 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34706</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting relief to the appellant in a customs duty refund case. The appellant&#039;s claim, filed after six months from duty payment, was initially rejected as time-barred. However, the Tribunal considered the unique circumstances, including goods not being available for assessment and short landing issues, leading to inconvenience for the appellant. The Tribunal held that the time-bar under Section 27 of the Customs Act did not apply, emphasizing that the amount deposited was not attributable to imported goods cleared without duty payment. The appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief to the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 11 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73323" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 168 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34706</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting relief to the appellant in a customs duty refund case. The appellant&#039;s claim, filed after six months from duty payment, was initially rejected as time-barred. However, the Tribunal considered the unique circumstances, including goods not being available for assessment and short landing issues, leading to inconvenience for the appellant. The Tribunal held that the time-bar under Section 27 of the Customs Act did not apply, emphasizing that the amount deposited was not attributable to imported goods cleared without duty payment. The appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief to the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34706</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>