<?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>2008 (10) TMI 248 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48446</link>
    <description>Amounts paid before issuance of a demand notice or show cause notice were not treated as unpaid duty for disqualifying a declarant from Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme relief under the Finance Act, 1998. The scheme applied only to duties, cesses, interest, fine or penalty forming the subject matter of a notice-based demand that remained unpaid on the declaration date. Payments made before notice were outside that disqualification, because they were not made pursuant to the notice-based arrear. The rejection of the declarations was therefore unsustainable, and the case was also noted as not falling within the section 95 exclusions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86941" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 248 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48446</link>
      <description>Amounts paid before issuance of a demand notice or show cause notice were not treated as unpaid duty for disqualifying a declarant from Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme relief under the Finance Act, 1998. The scheme applied only to duties, cesses, interest, fine or penalty forming the subject matter of a notice-based demand that remained unpaid on the declaration date. Payments made before notice were outside that disqualification, because they were not made pursuant to the notice-based arrear. The rejection of the declarations was therefore unsustainable, and the case was also noted as not falling within the section 95 exclusions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48446</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>