<?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 (5) TMI 204 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247277</link>
    <description>A question arose whether a trader clearing imported goods on commercial invoices must strictly comply with condition 2(b) to claim the benefit of Notification No. 102/2007. The Tribunal noted conflicting authorities: one view held that absence of the endorsement was not fatal where the goods were sold on commercial invoices and no duty element was passed on, while another required strict compliance with the notification conditions. Because of this divergence, the issue was referred to a Larger Bench for authoritative determination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 May 2014 14:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=355046" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 204 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247277</link>
      <description>A question arose whether a trader clearing imported goods on commercial invoices must strictly comply with condition 2(b) to claim the benefit of Notification No. 102/2007. The Tribunal noted conflicting authorities: one view held that absence of the endorsement was not fatal where the goods were sold on commercial invoices and no duty element was passed on, while another required strict compliance with the notification conditions. Because of this divergence, the issue was referred to a Larger Bench for authoritative determination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247277</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>