<?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 (8) TMI 318 - CESTAT  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250368</link>
    <description>Amendment of a Bill of Entry after out of charge was held permissible where documentary evidence showed a typographical error in the supplier&#039;s invoice value. The incorrect invoice figure had led to excess duty payment, but the purchase order, invoice, credit note and banking remittance records were already available and supported the correction. Refusal to permit amendment solely because the goods had been cleared was unjustified, as the proposed correction did not affect physical examination of the goods and was backed by contemporaneous evidence. Reassessment was therefore required to be allowed, and the rejection was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2015 12:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=361823" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (8) TMI 318 - CESTAT  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250368</link>
      <description>Amendment of a Bill of Entry after out of charge was held permissible where documentary evidence showed a typographical error in the supplier&#039;s invoice value. The incorrect invoice figure had led to excess duty payment, but the purchase order, invoice, credit note and banking remittance records were already available and supported the correction. Refusal to permit amendment solely because the goods had been cleared was unjustified, as the proposed correction did not affect physical examination of the goods and was backed by contemporaneous evidence. Reassessment was therefore required to be allowed, and the rejection was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250368</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>