<?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>2006 (5) TMI 289 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118258</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority&#039;s decision, ruling that the re-imported goods were not the same as those exported. Therefore, the appellants were deemed ineligible for the duty refund claim under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment emphasized the necessity of maintaining the fundamental identity of goods during export and re-importation to qualify for duty exemptions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:22:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155255" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 289 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118258</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority&#039;s decision, ruling that the re-imported goods were not the same as those exported. Therefore, the appellants were deemed ineligible for the duty refund claim under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment emphasized the necessity of maintaining the fundamental identity of goods during export and re-importation to qualify for duty exemptions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118258</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>