<?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>2019 (5) TMI 485 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379757</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner&#039;s order on the ground of limitation. The extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 28(1) was found to be inapplicable, rendering the demand for differential duty and the imposition of penalties unsustainable. The Tribunal did not make any observations on the issue of classification due to the decision on the limitation ground.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 10:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=570075" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 485 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379757</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner&#039;s order on the ground of limitation. The extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 28(1) was found to be inapplicable, rendering the demand for differential duty and the imposition of penalties unsustainable. The Tribunal did not make any observations on the issue of classification due to the decision on the limitation ground.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379757</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>