<?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>2013 (9) TMI 465 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237033</link>
    <description>Customs duty demand could not be sustained once the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate was produced before the appellate authority and the advance licence bond had already been discharged by the competent authority. Although the certificate had not been filed before the adjudicating authority, its later production, together with discharge of the bond, removed the for the demand. The demand was therefore treated as no longer maintainable, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Sep 2013 10:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199440" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 465 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237033</link>
      <description>Customs duty demand could not be sustained once the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate was produced before the appellate authority and the advance licence bond had already been discharged by the competent authority. Although the certificate had not been filed before the adjudicating authority, its later production, together with discharge of the bond, removed the for the demand. The demand was therefore treated as no longer maintainable, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237033</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>