<?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>2010 (2) TMI 835 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208382</link>
    <description>The Government upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the original order, rejecting the revision application concerning a duty drawback claim. The case involved the identification of re-exported goods, with the Government determining that the goods were not identifiable as required by the Customs Act. Despite the applicant&#039;s arguments and supporting documents, the Government found no evidence establishing proper identification, emphasizing the statutory requirements and the necessity to adhere to procedural and technical standards. The rejection of the revision application was based on the lack of merit in establishing the identification of goods for duty drawback claims.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181849" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 835 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208382</link>
      <description>The Government upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the original order, rejecting the revision application concerning a duty drawback claim. The case involved the identification of re-exported goods, with the Government determining that the goods were not identifiable as required by the Customs Act. Despite the applicant&#039;s arguments and supporting documents, the Government found no evidence establishing proper identification, emphasizing the statutory requirements and the necessity to adhere to procedural and technical standards. The rejection of the revision application was based on the lack of merit in establishing the identification of goods for duty drawback claims.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208382</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>