MIXED BUZZ

Cabinet okays waiver of penal interest on GOI loans to Cochin Port

MSME need to go for ratings to access Institutional Credit: RBI Dy Governor

NOTIFICATION

etariff16_31

Removal of mandatory warehousing requirements for EOUs, STPIs,EHTPs etc- Amendment to Notification 22/2003-CE dt 31.3.2003

CASE LAWS

2016-TIOL-127-SC-CUS + Story

COLGATE PALMOLIVE INDIA LTD Vs CC: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (Dated: August 24, 2016)

Cus - Imports from Nepal - SAD Exemption notification 124/2000-Cus dt. 29.09.2000 amending Notfn. 37/96-Cus dt. 23.07.96 is not clarificatory and was intended to be applied prospectively - SAD was not leviable and enforced when the Treaty of Trade was signed and the protocol was executed - protocol appended to the Treaty could not have conceived of future levy by way of proposition - It is difficult to appreciate that the exemption granted vide notification dated 29 th September, 2000 to special additional duty was clarificatory or to give effect to the existing protocol - it cannot be also said the issue of notification was a formal ministerial act which got delayed for administrative reasons - It was a conscious act and a deliberate decision which came into existence after due deliberation when it was decided to grant exemption under Section 3A of the Tariff Act - Appeals dismissed: Supreme Court [para 27, 28, 29, 32, 33]

Appeals dismissed