<?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 (12) TMI 169 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50205</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing their appeals on demurrage and bank charges. However, their claim for deductions on ocean losses was rejected. The matter was remanded for a fresh assessment on the limitation issue related to ocean losses, clarifying that the time bar would only apply to specific demands.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:11:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88685" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 169 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50205</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing their appeals on demurrage and bank charges. However, their claim for deductions on ocean losses was rejected. The matter was remanded for a fresh assessment on the limitation issue related to ocean losses, clarifying that the time bar would only apply to specific demands.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50205</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>