<?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 (2) TMI 1065 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191462</link>
    <description>The court set aside the revisional authority&#039;s order rejecting a drawback claim as time-barred due to non-compliance with requirements within the statutory period. The court held that the rules regarding incomplete claims should not apply to a drawback claim where interest is not claimed. As the revisional authority erred in applying the rules incorrectly, the original order rejecting the claim was restored, and the writ petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Apr 2017 07:02:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=464776" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 1065 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191462</link>
      <description>The court set aside the revisional authority&#039;s order rejecting a drawback claim as time-barred due to non-compliance with requirements within the statutory period. The court held that the rules regarding incomplete claims should not apply to a drawback claim where interest is not claimed. As the revisional authority erred in applying the rules incorrectly, the original order rejecting the claim was restored, and the writ petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191462</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>