<?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 (7) TMI 124 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52964</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the portion of the Commissioner (Appeals) order confirming duty liability against the appellants due to value enhancement. The Tribunal emphasized the procedural requirement of issuing a demand notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act for collecting short-levied duty, regardless of the appeal outcome under Section 129D.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:28:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91441" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (7) TMI 124 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52964</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the portion of the Commissioner (Appeals) order confirming duty liability against the appellants due to value enhancement. The Tribunal emphasized the procedural requirement of issuing a demand notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act for collecting short-levied duty, regardless of the appeal outcome under Section 129D.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52964</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>