<?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>2010 (4) TMI 362 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77485</link>
    <description>A direction for fresh adjudication could not rest on the Baggage Rules, 1994 after those rules had been repealed and replaced by the Baggage Rules, 1998. The proper legal basis for reconsideration had to be the operative rules in force, so the reference in the impugned order was corrected from the 1994 Rules to the 1998 Rules. The matter was then to be decided afresh under the substituted rules.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115651" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 362 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77485</link>
      <description>A direction for fresh adjudication could not rest on the Baggage Rules, 1994 after those rules had been repealed and replaced by the Baggage Rules, 1998. The proper legal basis for reconsideration had to be the operative rules in force, so the reference in the impugned order was corrected from the 1994 Rules to the 1998 Rules. The matter was then to be decided afresh under the substituted rules.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77485</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>