<?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 (12) TMI 1498 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336853</link>
    <description>The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, dropping the demand for interest recovery based on the absence of specific terms in the bond, aligning with the legal precedent set by the Supreme Court. The confirmation of the custom duty demand and the appropriation of paid amounts were upheld, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=453512" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 1498 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336853</link>
      <description>The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, dropping the demand for interest recovery based on the absence of specific terms in the bond, aligning with the legal precedent set by the Supreme Court. The confirmation of the custom duty demand and the appropriation of paid amounts were upheld, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336853</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>