<?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>Customs duty on conversion from foreign to coastal run held not leviable where imports predated Notification No.12/2012; demand quashed</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96017</link>
    <description>Whether customs duty on conversion from foreign to coastal run is leviable when import occurred before Notification No.12/2012: court held liability arises at the time of first import (date of import controls), and because the relevant imports predated the Notification, no duty was attractable - demand quashed. Whether the impugned letter constituted a valid demand or merely a show-cause notice: court found the enclosed computation and 14-day remittance call rendered it a substantive demand, not a procedural notice, and therefore the communication was invalid - quashed. - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2026 11:33:17 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2026 11:33:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=878343" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Customs duty on conversion from foreign to coastal run held not leviable where imports predated Notification No.12/2012; demand quashed</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96017</link>
      <description>Whether customs duty on conversion from foreign to coastal run is leviable when import occurred before Notification No.12/2012: court held liability arises at the time of first import (date of import controls), and because the relevant imports predated the Notification, no duty was attractable - demand quashed. Whether the impugned letter constituted a valid demand or merely a show-cause notice: court found the enclosed computation and 14-day remittance call rendered it a substantive demand, not a procedural notice, and therefore the communication was invalid - quashed. - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2026 11:33:17 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96017</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>