<?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 (9) TMI 1299 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285443</link>
    <description>A miscellaneous application sought a direction requiring the adjudicating authority to test samples of disputed goods in a specified manner. The Tribunal found no satisfactory legal basis showing that it had jurisdiction to grant such relief, and the applicant did not provide any independent reasoning or statutory authority to support the request. As the power to issue the proposed direction was not established, the application could not be entertained and was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Jan 2020 16:55:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=600038" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (9) TMI 1299 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285443</link>
      <description>A miscellaneous application sought a direction requiring the adjudicating authority to test samples of disputed goods in a specified manner. The Tribunal found no satisfactory legal basis showing that it had jurisdiction to grant such relief, and the applicant did not provide any independent reasoning or statutory authority to support the request. As the power to issue the proposed direction was not established, the application could not be entertained and was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285443</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>