<?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 (7) TMI 482 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119833</link>
    <description>The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demand against the appellant, stating that if the department failed to recover the duty from the merchant exporter, it could be recovered from the appellant. The Tribunal rejected the appellant&#039;s request for a waiver of pre-deposit of duty, emphasizing that the duty liability primarily rested with the merchant exporter, and the appellant could not seek a waiver for duty that should be recovered from the merchant exporter.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:23:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156829" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 482 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119833</link>
      <description>The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demand against the appellant, stating that if the department failed to recover the duty from the merchant exporter, it could be recovered from the appellant. The Tribunal rejected the appellant&#039;s request for a waiver of pre-deposit of duty, emphasizing that the duty liability primarily rested with the merchant exporter, and the appellant could not seek a waiver for duty that should be recovered from the merchant exporter.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119833</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>