<?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>2008 (12) TMI 109 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33138</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order and directed the Asst. Commissioner to sanction the refund under the Customs Act, treating the application accordingly. The Asst. Commissioner was found to have the authority to sanction both customs and Central Excise duty refunds, as he was responsible for units dealing with imported goods under both customs and excise.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71773" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (12) TMI 109 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33138</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order and directed the Asst. Commissioner to sanction the refund under the Customs Act, treating the application accordingly. The Asst. Commissioner was found to have the authority to sanction both customs and Central Excise duty refunds, as he was responsible for units dealing with imported goods under both customs and excise.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33138</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>