<?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>2000 (3) TMI 89 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49777</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals) decision, allowing the refund for excess duty paid due to exchange rate changes. They found no legal requirement for a bill of lading to accompany the bill of entry, rejecting the department&#039;s argument. The Tribunal dismissed the department&#039;s appeal, stating there was no justification for interference, affirming that the bills of entry were properly noted and assessed based on subsequently filed entries.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:58:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88257" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 89 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49777</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals) decision, allowing the refund for excess duty paid due to exchange rate changes. They found no legal requirement for a bill of lading to accompany the bill of entry, rejecting the department&#039;s argument. The Tribunal dismissed the department&#039;s appeal, stating there was no justification for interference, affirming that the bills of entry were properly noted and assessed based on subsequently filed entries.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49777</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>