<?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 (11) TMI 94 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238917</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to decide on an appeal related to a drawback claim as the impugned order was issued by the Commissioner (Appeals), falling outside the Tribunal&#039;s purview as per the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal and stay application were dismissed, granting the appellant liberty to file the appeal before the competent authority in accordance with the law. The Tribunal emphasized its lack of jurisdiction in such matters, concluding the legal proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Nov 2013 11:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334253" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 94 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238917</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to decide on an appeal related to a drawback claim as the impugned order was issued by the Commissioner (Appeals), falling outside the Tribunal&#039;s purview as per the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal and stay application were dismissed, granting the appellant liberty to file the appeal before the competent authority in accordance with the law. The Tribunal emphasized its lack of jurisdiction in such matters, concluding the legal proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238917</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>