<?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>2012 (6) TMI 533 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214221</link>
    <description>Where export obligation discharge certificates were produced but not examined by the lower authorities, remand was considered appropriate for verification and a fresh decision on merits. The original adjudicating authority was directed to verify the certificates and determine whether the export obligation had in fact been discharged. The matter was therefore sent back for reconsideration on the basis of the documentary evidence placed before the Tribunal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2012 14:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=187617" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (6) TMI 533 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214221</link>
      <description>Where export obligation discharge certificates were produced but not examined by the lower authorities, remand was considered appropriate for verification and a fresh decision on merits. The original adjudicating authority was directed to verify the certificates and determine whether the export obligation had in fact been discharged. The matter was therefore sent back for reconsideration on the basis of the documentary evidence placed before the Tribunal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214221</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>