<?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 (8) TMI 179 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54214</link>
    <description>Dismissal of an appeal as not pressed does not amount to a decision on merits and does not declare binding law for the Tribunal. On that basis, the Tribunal concluded that its earlier view on the levy of additional duty of customs on imported rubber could be reconsidered, particularly because the statutory treatment of cess on rubber produced in India as a duty of excise under the Rubber Act differed from the independent operation of additional duty under the Customs Tariff Act on imports. In view of possible error in earlier decisions and conflicting authorities, the Tribunal held that judicial consistency required reference of the levy issue to a Larger Bench.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:52:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92691" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (8) TMI 179 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54214</link>
      <description>Dismissal of an appeal as not pressed does not amount to a decision on merits and does not declare binding law for the Tribunal. On that basis, the Tribunal concluded that its earlier view on the levy of additional duty of customs on imported rubber could be reconsidered, particularly because the statutory treatment of cess on rubber produced in India as a duty of excise under the Rubber Act differed from the independent operation of additional duty under the Customs Tariff Act on imports. In view of possible error in earlier decisions and conflicting authorities, the Tribunal held that judicial consistency required reference of the levy issue to a Larger Bench.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54214</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>