<?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>1996 (3) TMI 138 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44433</link>
    <description>Additional duty under section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act is limited to the excise duty leviable on a like article if manufactured in India; where the corresponding domestic goods carried nil excise duty because of exemption or non-leviability, the additional customs duty could not exceed nil, and the levy on imported natural rubber and smoked rubber sheets was held unsustainable. Refund of duty already paid was treated as governed by the prescribed statutory refund machinery under the customs and central excise laws, so direct writ-based refund relief was not granted and claimants were relegated to the competent refund process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Jun 2010 11:49:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82962" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 138 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44433</link>
      <description>Additional duty under section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act is limited to the excise duty leviable on a like article if manufactured in India; where the corresponding domestic goods carried nil excise duty because of exemption or non-leviability, the additional customs duty could not exceed nil, and the levy on imported natural rubber and smoked rubber sheets was held unsustainable. Refund of duty already paid was treated as governed by the prescribed statutory refund machinery under the customs and central excise laws, so direct writ-based refund relief was not granted and claimants were relegated to the competent refund process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44433</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>