<?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>2018 (2) TMI 1688 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356267</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the rectification applications seeking to correct a mistake in its order, which upheld the enhancement of price in imported goods. The applicants argued that the order was erroneous as it relied on previously discarded evidence. However, the Tribunal clarified that its decision was based on various materials and facts, not solely on the discarded evidence. It concluded that there was no apparent error in the order and dismissed the rectification applications.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2019 18:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=510798" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 1688 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356267</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the rectification applications seeking to correct a mistake in its order, which upheld the enhancement of price in imported goods. The applicants argued that the order was erroneous as it relied on previously discarded evidence. However, the Tribunal clarified that its decision was based on various materials and facts, not solely on the discarded evidence. It concluded that there was no apparent error in the order and dismissed the rectification applications.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>