<?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>2006 (8) TMI 192 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47736</link>
    <description>The court accepted the appeal, overturning the decisions of lower authorities, and ruled in favor of the appellant, granting a refund of Rs. 1,31,255/- without interest. The court held that the appellant was entitled to the refund as they had paid excess customs duty under a misunderstanding of the law. The court applied the principle from a previous case that exemption notifications should be based on entitlement rather than actual availing, supporting the appellant&#039;s claim for a refund. Each party was to bear its own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2014 19:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86254" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (8) TMI 192 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47736</link>
      <description>The court accepted the appeal, overturning the decisions of lower authorities, and ruled in favor of the appellant, granting a refund of Rs. 1,31,255/- without interest. The court held that the appellant was entitled to the refund as they had paid excess customs duty under a misunderstanding of the law. The court applied the principle from a previous case that exemption notifications should be based on entitlement rather than actual availing, supporting the appellant&#039;s claim for a refund. Each party was to bear its own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47736</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>