<?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>2024 (12) TMI 964 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763384</link>
    <description>Extra Duty Deposit collected during provisional assessment of imported goods from related parties is a security deposit meant to safeguard revenue until finalisation. Once the Special Valuation Branch accepted the declared value and assessment was finalised, the department had no basis to retain the deposit, and its return followed as a consequence of finalisation rather than as an independent refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The limitation period for refund claims under Section 27 therefore did not apply, and continued retention after finalisation was inconsistent with Article 265 of the Constitution. Non-production of the original TR6 challan was treated as a curable procedural objection and did not defeat the refund.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2024 15:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=783485" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 964 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763384</link>
      <description>Extra Duty Deposit collected during provisional assessment of imported goods from related parties is a security deposit meant to safeguard revenue until finalisation. Once the Special Valuation Branch accepted the declared value and assessment was finalised, the department had no basis to retain the deposit, and its return followed as a consequence of finalisation rather than as an independent refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The limitation period for refund claims under Section 27 therefore did not apply, and continued retention after finalisation was inconsistent with Article 265 of the Constitution. Non-production of the original TR6 challan was treated as a curable procedural objection and did not defeat the refund.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763384</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>