<?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>2007 (5) TMI 394 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121582</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found that the Joint Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to file an appeal against the Additional Commissioner&#039;s order. Citing previous decisions, it determined the appeal was legally flawed. Considering the merits, the Tribunal relied on past cases, including one dismissed by the Supreme Court. Concluding that the appellants had successfully argued their case, the Tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:32:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=158576" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (5) TMI 394 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121582</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found that the Joint Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to file an appeal against the Additional Commissioner&#039;s order. Citing previous decisions, it determined the appeal was legally flawed. Considering the merits, the Tribunal relied on past cases, including one dismissed by the Supreme Court. Concluding that the appellants had successfully argued their case, the Tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121582</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>