<?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>1987 (7) TMI 335 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73625</link>
    <description>Rule 41 of the CEGAT Procedure Rules, 1982 was considered in relation to whether the Tribunal could direct Customs authorities to issue a detention certificate for importer claimed detention period. The majority held that once the earlier appellate order had been fully complied with, the request did not arise from an appealable decision under the Customs Act, 1962; the detention certificate was linked to port trust demurrage rules and lay outside the Tribunal&#039;s appellate and ancillary jurisdiction. It further held that Rule 41 could not enlarge statutory powers, and that the Tribunal&#039;s powers could not be equated with Article 226 writ jurisdiction. The application was therefore not maintainable. A dissenting view treated the detention as customs-related and considered Rule 41 sufficient to support a modified certificate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2011 14:54:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111904" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (7) TMI 335 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73625</link>
      <description>Rule 41 of the CEGAT Procedure Rules, 1982 was considered in relation to whether the Tribunal could direct Customs authorities to issue a detention certificate for importer claimed detention period. The majority held that once the earlier appellate order had been fully complied with, the request did not arise from an appealable decision under the Customs Act, 1962; the detention certificate was linked to port trust demurrage rules and lay outside the Tribunal&#039;s appellate and ancillary jurisdiction. It further held that Rule 41 could not enlarge statutory powers, and that the Tribunal&#039;s powers could not be equated with Article 226 writ jurisdiction. The application was therefore not maintainable. A dissenting view treated the detention as customs-related and considered Rule 41 sufficient to support a modified certificate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73625</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>