<?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>2016 (3) TMI 700 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325516</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked jurisdiction to re-adjudicate the matter as finalization of the provisional assessment and availability of exemption under Notification No.6/2002-CE were pending. The denial of benefit under the notification was upheld based on a Supreme Court precedent. The appeal on procedural lapses and jurisdictional issues was allowed, setting aside the challenged orders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2016 12:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=420942" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 700 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325516</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked jurisdiction to re-adjudicate the matter as finalization of the provisional assessment and availability of exemption under Notification No.6/2002-CE were pending. The denial of benefit under the notification was upheld based on a Supreme Court precedent. The appeal on procedural lapses and jurisdictional issues was allowed, setting aside the challenged orders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325516</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>