<?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 684 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116192</link>
    <description>An appeal by the proprietor of a customs-related business was dismissed as not required because the proprietorship concern had filed a separate appeal on the same matter. The disposition reflects only that the tribunal treated the present appeal as unnecessary in light of the parallel proceeding, without recording any substantive determination on the customs dispute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2012 17:36:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153190" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 684 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116192</link>
      <description>An appeal by the proprietor of a customs-related business was dismissed as not required because the proprietorship concern had filed a separate appeal on the same matter. The disposition reflects only that the tribunal treated the present appeal as unnecessary in light of the parallel proceeding, without recording any substantive determination on the customs dispute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116192</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>