<?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>2005 (3) TMI 247 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53971</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the demand notice issued by the Revenue was not time-barred under Section 28(3)(b) of the Customs Act. The Commissioner&#039;s order was set aside, and the appeal by the Revenue was allowed. The Tribunal considered the date of credit of the duty amount into the treasury as the date of adjustment of duty, despite any delay in crediting the amount, in line with the provisions of the Customs Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Oct 2010 11:50:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92448" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 247 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53971</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the demand notice issued by the Revenue was not time-barred under Section 28(3)(b) of the Customs Act. The Commissioner&#039;s order was set aside, and the appeal by the Revenue was allowed. The Tribunal considered the date of credit of the duty amount into the treasury as the date of adjustment of duty, despite any delay in crediting the amount, in line with the provisions of the Customs Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53971</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>