<?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>2025 (9) TMI 768 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778279</link>
    <description>HC declined to admit the petition, holding there was no clear breach of natural justice arising from the cryptic show-cause notice and no material evidence (including test report) supporting reclassification of the goods. The court found the question of availability of machinery for blending to be a disputed factual issue more appropriately resolved by the Appellate Authority and refused to permit deviation from the ordinary route of exhausting alternate statutory remedies.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Sep 2025 08:47:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=850217" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (9) TMI 768 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778279</link>
      <description>HC declined to admit the petition, holding there was no clear breach of natural justice arising from the cryptic show-cause notice and no material evidence (including test report) supporting reclassification of the goods. The court found the question of availability of machinery for blending to be a disputed factual issue more appropriately resolved by the Appellate Authority and refused to permit deviation from the ordinary route of exhausting alternate statutory remedies.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778279</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>