<?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 (3) TMI 1056 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176522</link>
    <description>Section 17(6) of the Customs Act was treated as an enabling provision for audit of assessment, but not as a substitute for a speaking order under section 17(5). The absence of a reasoned order was material, and the dispute could not be sustained solely on section 17(6). The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue on merits and pass a speaking order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2015 22:41:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=410267" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 1056 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176522</link>
      <description>Section 17(6) of the Customs Act was treated as an enabling provision for audit of assessment, but not as a substitute for a speaking order under section 17(5). The absence of a reasoned order was material, and the dispute could not be sustained solely on section 17(6). The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue on merits and pass a speaking order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176522</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>