<?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>1980 (3) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40938</link>
    <description>HC ruled in favor of appellants challenging customs duty assessment. The court interpreted Sections 12 and 15 of Customs Act, 1962, holding that duty rate applicable is determined by the date of goods&#039; removal from warehouse. The exemption notification reducing duty from 60% to 27.5% was deemed applicable when goods were withdrawn. Assistant Collector&#039;s demand for higher duty was quashed, and appellants were directed to receive deposited amounts with interest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2025 17:39:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79469" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (3) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40938</link>
      <description>HC ruled in favor of appellants challenging customs duty assessment. The court interpreted Sections 12 and 15 of Customs Act, 1962, holding that duty rate applicable is determined by the date of goods&#039; removal from warehouse. The exemption notification reducing duty from 60% to 27.5% was deemed applicable when goods were withdrawn. Assistant Collector&#039;s demand for higher duty was quashed, and appellants were directed to receive deposited amounts with interest.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40938</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>