<?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 365 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247438</link>
    <description>The Tribunal granted a stay against the Commissioner (A)&#039;s decision allowing re-export of polyester/cotton blended fabrics on payment of a fine. The Revenue successfully argued that the re-export request was introduced for the first time during the fourth round of adjudication, with no valid justification provided by the Commissioner (A). The Tribunal found that the Revenue had established a strong prima facie case, leading to the stay of the re-export order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 May 2014 10:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=355480" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 365 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247438</link>
      <description>The Tribunal granted a stay against the Commissioner (A)&#039;s decision allowing re-export of polyester/cotton blended fabrics on payment of a fine. The Revenue successfully argued that the re-export request was introduced for the first time during the fourth round of adjudication, with no valid justification provided by the Commissioner (A). The Tribunal found that the Revenue had established a strong prima facie case, leading to the stay of the re-export order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247438</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>