<?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>2013 (10) TMI 1315 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170641</link>
    <description>The government rejected the revision application filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise &amp;amp; Customs challenging the rejection of a drawback claim by M/s. M.M. Exports (India). The dispute arose due to missing original shipping bill copies hindering the drawback claim process. Despite the photocopy submission, the respondent justified the reconstruction request by providing evidence of submitting required copies to relevant authorities. The government emphasized strict compliance with rules and exemptions, ultimately upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision in favor of the respondent, concluding that the revision lacked merit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 May 2015 11:12:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=386970" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (10) TMI 1315 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170641</link>
      <description>The government rejected the revision application filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise &amp;amp; Customs challenging the rejection of a drawback claim by M/s. M.M. Exports (India). The dispute arose due to missing original shipping bill copies hindering the drawback claim process. Despite the photocopy submission, the respondent justified the reconstruction request by providing evidence of submitting required copies to relevant authorities. The government emphasized strict compliance with rules and exemptions, ultimately upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision in favor of the respondent, concluding that the revision lacked merit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170641</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>