<?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>1985 (1) TMI 158 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72275</link>
    <description>The revision application was transferred to the Tribunal for appeal from the Order-in-Appeal by the Appellate Collector. The appellants&#039; refund claim for duty on shortlanded goods was rejected due to document deficiencies and information discrepancies. The Appellate Authority failed to consider additional evidence submitted by the appellants. Despite allegations of a callous attitude, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of the Bombay Port Trust certificate and directed verification of shortlanded cases and original invoices. The appeal was allowed, lower authorities&#039; orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the Assistant Collector.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 May 2011 10:50:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110554" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (1) TMI 158 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72275</link>
      <description>The revision application was transferred to the Tribunal for appeal from the Order-in-Appeal by the Appellate Collector. The appellants&#039; refund claim for duty on shortlanded goods was rejected due to document deficiencies and information discrepancies. The Appellate Authority failed to consider additional evidence submitted by the appellants. Despite allegations of a callous attitude, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of the Bombay Port Trust certificate and directed verification of shortlanded cases and original invoices. The appeal was allowed, lower authorities&#039; orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the Assistant Collector.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72275</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>