<?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>2004 (5) TMI 93 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48990</link>
    <description>The appeal was dismissed, affirming the rejection of the refund application. The Tribunal applied the Flock India ratio due to the existence of a dispute between the parties and the unchallenged adjudication order. The judgment did not address the scenario where there was only a Bill of Entry assessment without a dispute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Aug 2010 15:31:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87470" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 93 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48990</link>
      <description>The appeal was dismissed, affirming the rejection of the refund application. The Tribunal applied the Flock India ratio due to the existence of a dispute between the parties and the unchallenged adjudication order. The judgment did not address the scenario where there was only a Bill of Entry assessment without a dispute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48990</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>