<?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 511 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256511</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that despite the absence of the required endorsement on the invoices, the appellant met the conditions for exemption under Notification 102/2007-Cus. The judgment highlighted the importance of fulfilling all conditions of an exemption notification while interpreting specific requirements, ultimately granting relief to the appellant based on legal precedent and compliance with statutory provisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 15 Feb 2015 10:55:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=376039" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 511 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256511</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that despite the absence of the required endorsement on the invoices, the appellant met the conditions for exemption under Notification 102/2007-Cus. The judgment highlighted the importance of fulfilling all conditions of an exemption notification while interpreting specific requirements, ultimately granting relief to the appellant based on legal precedent and compliance with statutory provisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256511</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>