<?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 (6) TMI 60 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48922</link>
    <description>Liability for a hundred per cent export-oriented undertaking&#039;s clearances into the Domestic Tariff Area depended on the exemption notification in force during the relevant period. The then-applicable notification restricted duty to 50% of the customs duty leviable on DTA clearances, and a later retrospective amendment to the charging provision in Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not by itself enlarge the scope of the unamended notification. Because the demand related to a period before the notification was prospectively amended, the assessees were not liable for the additional duty claimed and the finding of short payment was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Aug 2010 12:22:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87402" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (6) TMI 60 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48922</link>
      <description>Liability for a hundred per cent export-oriented undertaking&#039;s clearances into the Domestic Tariff Area depended on the exemption notification in force during the relevant period. The then-applicable notification restricted duty to 50% of the customs duty leviable on DTA clearances, and a later retrospective amendment to the charging provision in Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not by itself enlarge the scope of the unamended notification. Because the demand related to a period before the notification was prospectively amended, the assessees were not liable for the additional duty claimed and the finding of short payment was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48922</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>