<?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 (12) TMI 1378 - CESTAT  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291415</link>
    <description>Under Section 129C(5) of the Customs Act, where Members of a Division Bench differ, the Bench must formulate the specific point or points of disagreement before a Third Member reference is made. A blanket reference of the entire appeal is impermissible because the statutory language confines the referral to the precise issues on which the Members are divided. The referral process must therefore preserve certainty and proceed only on the identified points of difference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2020 18:43:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=627340" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (12) TMI 1378 - CESTAT  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291415</link>
      <description>Under Section 129C(5) of the Customs Act, where Members of a Division Bench differ, the Bench must formulate the specific point or points of disagreement before a Third Member reference is made. A blanket reference of the entire appeal is impermissible because the statutory language confines the referral to the precise issues on which the Members are divided. The referral process must therefore preserve certainty and proceed only on the identified points of difference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291415</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>