<?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>2002 (9) TMI 115 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46412</link>
    <description>The dominant issues were whether the impugned customs notification enhancing assessable &quot;trend values&quot; became operative on 3-8-2001 for levy of additional duty, and whether it validly fixed trend values only for part of a class of goods under the tariff. On publication, while a Gazette carries a rebuttable presumption of genuineness under the Evidence Act, the revenue failed to produce the Gazette or records proving publication on 3-8-2001; a mere letter to the Govt press and website intimation were insufficient, and the evidence supported non-publication on that date, so the notification was held inoperative then and the consequential levy was quashed. On discrimination, fixing trend values only for select vegetable oils without objective justification was beyond statutory authority, so the notification and resulting demand were set aside, with release of securities/bank guarantees.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2025 17:10:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84933" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (9) TMI 115 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46412</link>
      <description>The dominant issues were whether the impugned customs notification enhancing assessable &quot;trend values&quot; became operative on 3-8-2001 for levy of additional duty, and whether it validly fixed trend values only for part of a class of goods under the tariff. On publication, while a Gazette carries a rebuttable presumption of genuineness under the Evidence Act, the revenue failed to produce the Gazette or records proving publication on 3-8-2001; a mere letter to the Govt press and website intimation were insufficient, and the evidence supported non-publication on that date, so the notification was held inoperative then and the consequential levy was quashed. On discrimination, fixing trend values only for select vegetable oils without objective justification was beyond statutory authority, so the notification and resulting demand were set aside, with release of securities/bank guarantees.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46412</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>