<?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>2001 (7) TMI 140 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46029</link>
    <description>Where actual landing charges are ascertainable from the Port Trust, a notional landing charge cannot be insisted upon under customs valuation rules. Excess duty collected on that basis is therefore liable to refund, subject to the law on passing on of incidence. The Madras HC set aside the refusal of refund and directed the claim to be reconsidered afresh on merits after notice, specifically on whether the duty burden had been passed on to another person.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:39:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84555" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 140 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46029</link>
      <description>Where actual landing charges are ascertainable from the Port Trust, a notional landing charge cannot be insisted upon under customs valuation rules. Excess duty collected on that basis is therefore liable to refund, subject to the law on passing on of incidence. The Madras HC set aside the refusal of refund and directed the claim to be reconsidered afresh on merits after notice, specifically on whether the duty burden had been passed on to another person.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46029</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>