<?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 (12) TMI 1180 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447496</link>
    <description>The CESTAT NEW DELHI held that appellant&#039;s 4191 appeals challenging customs classification were not simple refund cases but disputed classification matters requiring court fees under section 129A(6) of Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal found that appellant challenged assessment orders regarding goods classification, explaining manufacturing processes and cover purposes, indicating classification dispute rather than refund claim. No refund application was filed. The tribunal ruled that when duty is paid under protest and challenged through appeal, it constitutes disputed demand requiring mandatory court fees payment, with limited exceptions under the proviso. Appellant was directed to deposit requisite court fees within two weeks.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Dec 2023 08:42:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=737301" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (12) TMI 1180 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447496</link>
      <description>The CESTAT NEW DELHI held that appellant&#039;s 4191 appeals challenging customs classification were not simple refund cases but disputed classification matters requiring court fees under section 129A(6) of Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal found that appellant challenged assessment orders regarding goods classification, explaining manufacturing processes and cover purposes, indicating classification dispute rather than refund claim. No refund application was filed. The tribunal ruled that when duty is paid under protest and challenged through appeal, it constitutes disputed demand requiring mandatory court fees payment, with limited exceptions under the proviso. Appellant was directed to deposit requisite court fees within two weeks.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447496</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>