<?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 154 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33887</link>
    <description>Disputed issues concerning warehoused goods of a 100% EOU were not finally decided on merits; the Tribunal referred the questions to a Larger Bench. The reference covered jurisdiction, removal of goods from warehouse, treatment on home consumption, and whether the earlier view on these points was correct. The operative effect is that the legal position on these connected customs issues remains pending before the Larger Bench, with no final determination in this decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72515" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (12) TMI 154 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33887</link>
      <description>Disputed issues concerning warehoused goods of a 100% EOU were not finally decided on merits; the Tribunal referred the questions to a Larger Bench. The reference covered jurisdiction, removal of goods from warehouse, treatment on home consumption, and whether the earlier view on these points was correct. The operative effect is that the legal position on these connected customs issues remains pending before the Larger Bench, with no final determination in this decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33887</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>