<?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>2017 (2) TMI 137 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338437</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; decision to allow the respondent&#039;s appeal in a case involving compliance with Project Import Regulation 1986. Despite missing specific documents, the Tribunal found the reconciliation statement and other submissions sufficient to demonstrate adherence to Regulation 7. Consequently, the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed, affirming the Order-in-Appeal in favor of the respondent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2017 10:12:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=457495" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 137 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338437</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; decision to allow the respondent&#039;s appeal in a case involving compliance with Project Import Regulation 1986. Despite missing specific documents, the Tribunal found the reconciliation statement and other submissions sufficient to demonstrate adherence to Regulation 7. Consequently, the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed, affirming the Order-in-Appeal in favor of the respondent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338437</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>