<?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 (8) TMI 969 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331585</link>
    <description>Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 65/88-Cus had to be examined on merits in de novo adjudication even though it was not specifically claimed at the assessment stage, because the Original Adjudicating Authority had not earlier decided that issue. The penalty aspect was also required to be reconsidered along with the exemption claim. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after granting the appellant an opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Aug 2016 13:35:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=439363" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 969 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331585</link>
      <description>Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 65/88-Cus had to be examined on merits in de novo adjudication even though it was not specifically claimed at the assessment stage, because the Original Adjudicating Authority had not earlier decided that issue. The penalty aspect was also required to be reconsidered along with the exemption claim. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after granting the appellant an opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331585</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>