<?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>1977 (9) TMI 36 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40624</link>
    <description>The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Central Government&#039;s orders. The petitioner&#039;s claim for refund of duty on pilfered goods was to be reconsidered under Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962, broadening the interpretation to include pilferage as a form of loss. Each party was to bear its own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 11:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79155" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (9) TMI 36 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40624</link>
      <description>The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Central Government&#039;s orders. The petitioner&#039;s claim for refund of duty on pilfered goods was to be reconsidered under Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962, broadening the interpretation to include pilferage as a form of loss. Each party was to bear its own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40624</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>