<?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>2014 (4) TMI 266 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245795</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision to drop proceedings against the respondents, ruling that the extended limitation period was not applicable. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide evidence that the department was aware of the dredging operations, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2014 11:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351531" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 266 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245795</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision to drop proceedings against the respondents, ruling that the extended limitation period was not applicable. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide evidence that the department was aware of the dredging operations, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245795</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>