<?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>2015 (2) TMI 298 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256298</link>
    <description>The appellant&#039;s refund claim disallowed under a special CVD exemption was reinstated by the court. The Commissioner (Appeals) decision was overturned due to errors in assessing compliance with invoice requirements, unjust enrichment, and jurisdictional authority for the claim submission. The court found the appellant&#039;s arguments convincing, emphasizing the need for detailed consideration of evidence and adherence to legal standards in refund claim cases for a fair outcome.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2015 12:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=375587" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 298 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256298</link>
      <description>The appellant&#039;s refund claim disallowed under a special CVD exemption was reinstated by the court. The Commissioner (Appeals) decision was overturned due to errors in assessing compliance with invoice requirements, unjust enrichment, and jurisdictional authority for the claim submission. The court found the appellant&#039;s arguments convincing, emphasizing the need for detailed consideration of evidence and adherence to legal standards in refund claim cases for a fair outcome.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256298</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>