<?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>2004 (11) TMI 432 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114814</link>
    <description>Remission of duty was claimed for baggaging loss under the Central Excise remission framework, but the provision invoked was held not to extend to such loss. The claim was found unsustainable in law and on merits because remission must fall within the scope of the governing provision, and baggaging loss was outside that scope. The result was rejection of the remission claim for duty relief on account of baggaging loss.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 13:19:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151813" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 432 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114814</link>
      <description>Remission of duty was claimed for baggaging loss under the Central Excise remission framework, but the provision invoked was held not to extend to such loss. The claim was found unsustainable in law and on merits because remission must fall within the scope of the governing provision, and baggaging loss was outside that scope. The result was rejection of the remission claim for duty relief on account of baggaging loss.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114814</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>