<?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>2009 (11) TMI 786 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155079</link>
    <description>Refund of duty on consignments not received was sustained where the Kolkata Port Trust certificate and allowed insurance claim records supported non-receipt. The Commissioner (Appeals) treated that material as sufficient evidence, and the record did not show actual receipt of the consignments. Revenue&#039;s contrary material did not dislodge the finding of non-receipt, so the refund allowance was maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Aug 2013 12:34:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172110" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 786 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155079</link>
      <description>Refund of duty on consignments not received was sustained where the Kolkata Port Trust certificate and allowed insurance claim records supported non-receipt. The Commissioner (Appeals) treated that material as sufficient evidence, and the record did not show actual receipt of the consignments. Revenue&#039;s contrary material did not dislodge the finding of non-receipt, so the refund allowance was maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155079</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>