<?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>2024 (7) TMI 1412 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756192</link>
    <description>The HC allowed the appellant&#039;s Writ Appeal, overturning the Single Judge&#039;s decision, and directed Customs Authorities to process the SAD refund application within a month. The HC recognized the appellant&#039;s compliance with Notification No. 102/2007-Cus conditions, despite Circular No. 18/2013-Cus, which was annulled, underscoring the importance of objective evaluation of refund claims.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Jul 2024 10:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=762123" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 1412 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756192</link>
      <description>The HC allowed the appellant&#039;s Writ Appeal, overturning the Single Judge&#039;s decision, and directed Customs Authorities to process the SAD refund application within a month. The HC recognized the appellant&#039;s compliance with Notification No. 102/2007-Cus conditions, despite Circular No. 18/2013-Cus, which was annulled, underscoring the importance of objective evaluation of refund claims.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756192</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>