<?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>2008 (4) TMI 643 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124565</link>
    <description>Misdeclaration of exported goods led to disallowance of drawback, penalty, and consideration of redemption fine. The Tribunal noted that disputes arising from drawback claims and the connected penal action were governed by the jurisdictional scheme placing such matters before the Government of India, not the Tribunal. On that basis, the appeal was treated as not maintainable before the Tribunal for want of jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2012 17:57:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161509" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 643 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124565</link>
      <description>Misdeclaration of exported goods led to disallowance of drawback, penalty, and consideration of redemption fine. The Tribunal noted that disputes arising from drawback claims and the connected penal action were governed by the jurisdictional scheme placing such matters before the Government of India, not the Tribunal. On that basis, the appeal was treated as not maintainable before the Tribunal for want of jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124565</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>