<?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 (9) TMI 414 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332153</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by M/s Smit Salvage B.V., remanding the matter to the original adjudicating authority. The Tribunal held that the appellant&#039;s refund claim for the pre-deposit made during the investigation was valid and criticized the lack of a reasoned adjudication order. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision on the refund claims related to the pre-deposit made during the demand case investigation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 11 Sep 2016 14:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=440736" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 414 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332153</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by M/s Smit Salvage B.V., remanding the matter to the original adjudicating authority. The Tribunal held that the appellant&#039;s refund claim for the pre-deposit made during the investigation was valid and criticized the lack of a reasoned adjudication order. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision on the refund claims related to the pre-deposit made during the demand case investigation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332153</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>