<?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>1965 (5) TMI 3 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45787</link>
    <description>Customs duty collected at a higher rate was refundable where the applicable export rate was governed by the statutory scheme and the excess collection resulted from error or misconstruction of that scheme. On the facts, the legally payable duty was only the reduced rate in force when the vessel arrived and outward entry was made, so the excess fell within the refund provision. Relief was not denied because the claim did not expressly cite that provision, since the necessary facts were pleaded. The availability of an alternative revision remedy did not bar writ relief where the customs orders rested on an erroneous statutory interpretation and caused manifest injustice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 May 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:56:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84314" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (5) TMI 3 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45787</link>
      <description>Customs duty collected at a higher rate was refundable where the applicable export rate was governed by the statutory scheme and the excess collection resulted from error or misconstruction of that scheme. On the facts, the legally payable duty was only the reduced rate in force when the vessel arrived and outward entry was made, so the excess fell within the refund provision. Relief was not denied because the claim did not expressly cite that provision, since the necessary facts were pleaded. The availability of an alternative revision remedy did not bar writ relief where the customs orders rested on an erroneous statutory interpretation and caused manifest injustice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 May 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45787</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>