<?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>2000 (3) TMI 61 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45428</link>
    <description>Interest on warehoused goods under Section 61(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 is only accessory to the principal duty liability. Where the applicable DEEC scheme meant that the principal duty was not payable, interest could not survive as an independent demand. The Tribunal applied this settled principle and relied on earlier Supreme Court authority recognising that such interest has no separate existence. The interest demand was therefore unsustainable and the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Jul 2010 13:59:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83957" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 61 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45428</link>
      <description>Interest on warehoused goods under Section 61(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 is only accessory to the principal duty liability. Where the applicable DEEC scheme meant that the principal duty was not payable, interest could not survive as an independent demand. The Tribunal applied this settled principle and relied on earlier Supreme Court authority recognising that such interest has no separate existence. The interest demand was therefore unsustainable and the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45428</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>