<?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 (8) TMI 112 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46419</link>
    <description>Withdrawal of brand rate drawback was examined on two grounds: alleged breach of natural justice and merits under writ jurisdiction. The Court found no prejudice from non-supply of the re-verification report because the claimant had earlier opportunities to respond, had filed objections, and later filed an affidavit after receiving the report. On merits, drawback depended on proof of actual duty suffered and proper verification of inputs used in exported goods; the record, including the re-verification report, supported the view that the claims were inflated or unsubstantiated. The writ court declined fresh minute scrutiny of accounting entries and sustained the departmental withdrawal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:07:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84940" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 112 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46419</link>
      <description>Withdrawal of brand rate drawback was examined on two grounds: alleged breach of natural justice and merits under writ jurisdiction. The Court found no prejudice from non-supply of the re-verification report because the claimant had earlier opportunities to respond, had filed objections, and later filed an affidavit after receiving the report. On merits, drawback depended on proof of actual duty suffered and proper verification of inputs used in exported goods; the record, including the re-verification report, supported the view that the claims were inflated or unsubstantiated. The writ court declined fresh minute scrutiny of accounting entries and sustained the departmental withdrawal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46419</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>