<?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>2000 (4) TMI 83 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49978</link>
    <description>A claimant to exemption or concessional customs relief must affirmatively prove that the imported goods fall within the exact description in the notification; here, the importer failed to show that calculator key boards were &quot;switches&quot; or that the printer was a &quot;line printer&quot;, so the concessional notifications were not available. Delay in completing adjudication did not by itself invalidate the proceedings because the Customs Act prescribed no statutory time limit, and no actual prejudice or breach of natural justice was shown. The challenge to the adjudication order on delay therefore failed, and the denial of exemption was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 18:14:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88458" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (4) TMI 83 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49978</link>
      <description>A claimant to exemption or concessional customs relief must affirmatively prove that the imported goods fall within the exact description in the notification; here, the importer failed to show that calculator key boards were &quot;switches&quot; or that the printer was a &quot;line printer&quot;, so the concessional notifications were not available. Delay in completing adjudication did not by itself invalidate the proceedings because the Customs Act prescribed no statutory time limit, and no actual prejudice or breach of natural justice was shown. The challenge to the adjudication order on delay therefore failed, and the denial of exemption was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49978</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>