<?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 (10) TMI 382 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117044</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the duty demand under Notification No. 158/95 as the appellants failed to re-export goods within the specified period and did not establish the identity of re-imported and re-exported goods. The appeal was rejected, affirming the decision of the lower authorities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 29 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:42:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154042" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 382 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117044</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the duty demand under Notification No. 158/95 as the appellants failed to re-export goods within the specified period and did not establish the identity of re-imported and re-exported goods. The appeal was rejected, affirming the decision of the lower authorities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 29 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117044</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>