<?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 (8) TMI 430 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364958</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision allowing the refund claim based on the provisional nature of the invoice, the RBI&#039;s approval, and the interpretation that filing a refund claim challenges the assessment order. The issue of finalizing the shipping bill was remitted to the assessing officer to be done in accordance with the law, leading to the refund of the differential duty paid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2020 11:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=529950" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 430 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364958</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision allowing the refund claim based on the provisional nature of the invoice, the RBI&#039;s approval, and the interpretation that filing a refund claim challenges the assessment order. The issue of finalizing the shipping bill was remitted to the assessing officer to be done in accordance with the law, leading to the refund of the differential duty paid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364958</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>