<?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>1975 (11) TMI 49 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42298</link>
    <description>Export-duty exemption for jute specialities turned on whether f.a.s. value had crossed the statutory threshold. The Court applied section 14 read with section 2(41) of the Customs Act and held that valuation had to follow the ordinary international trade price at the time and place of export, not the exporter&#039;s contract price. Registration certificates, the export-contract registration scheme and administrative letters could not displace the statute or create estoppel against Revenue. It also held that section 28 did not require short-levy notices to state detailed reasons where the assessee knew the basis of the demand. The statutory valuation, valuation re-examination, and notices were therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80827" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (11) TMI 49 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42298</link>
      <description>Export-duty exemption for jute specialities turned on whether f.a.s. value had crossed the statutory threshold. The Court applied section 14 read with section 2(41) of the Customs Act and held that valuation had to follow the ordinary international trade price at the time and place of export, not the exporter&#039;s contract price. Registration certificates, the export-contract registration scheme and administrative letters could not displace the statute or create estoppel against Revenue. It also held that section 28 did not require short-levy notices to state detailed reasons where the assessee knew the basis of the demand. The statutory valuation, valuation re-examination, and notices were therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42298</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>