<?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 (8) TMI 292 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262375</link>
    <description>The appellate court set aside the orders of the learned Single Judge and the DGFT&#039;s rejection order, directing the DGFT to reconsider the petitioner&#039;s refund application in accordance with the provisions of FTP, 2009-2014. The DGFT was instructed to pass an appropriate order within six weeks, providing the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard. The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2016 14:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=392574" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 292 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262375</link>
      <description>The appellate court set aside the orders of the learned Single Judge and the DGFT&#039;s rejection order, directing the DGFT to reconsider the petitioner&#039;s refund application in accordance with the provisions of FTP, 2009-2014. The DGFT was instructed to pass an appropriate order within six weeks, providing the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard. The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262375</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>