<?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>2009 (11) TMI 961 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187207</link>
    <description>Refusal of factory stuffing permission was set aside because the rejection order contained no reasons and was not a speaking order. The tribunal held that, where the competent authority fails to disclose the basis for refusing permission, the matter should be reconsidered after hearing the applicant. The application was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh decision by a reasoned order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2016 16:46:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=444600" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 961 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187207</link>
      <description>Refusal of factory stuffing permission was set aside because the rejection order contained no reasons and was not a speaking order. The tribunal held that, where the competent authority fails to disclose the basis for refusing permission, the matter should be reconsidered after hearing the applicant. The application was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh decision by a reasoned order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187207</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>