<?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 (6) TMI 143 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343872</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the applications for rectification of mistake as there was no apparent error on record requiring rectification. The Final Order rejecting the refund claim for duty paid in excess without challenging the assessment order was upheld, citing limitations on the Tribunal&#039;s power to correct clear and obvious errors only. The Tribunal&#039;s decision was based on a review of legal precedents and arguments presented by both parties, leading to the dismissal of the ROM applications on 28/02/2017.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Jun 2017 12:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=470827" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 143 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343872</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the applications for rectification of mistake as there was no apparent error on record requiring rectification. The Final Order rejecting the refund claim for duty paid in excess without challenging the assessment order was upheld, citing limitations on the Tribunal&#039;s power to correct clear and obvious errors only. The Tribunal&#039;s decision was based on a review of legal precedents and arguments presented by both parties, leading to the dismissal of the ROM applications on 28/02/2017.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343872</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>