<?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>2002 (8) TMI 376 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102835</link>
    <description>A show cause notice demanding duty was invalid because it was served after the amended proviso to Section 11A took effect and was issued by a subordinate officer without the prior approval of the jurisdictional Commissioner. Where the demand fell within the prescribed limit, that approval was a mandatory statutory condition, and its absence rendered the notice defective. Proceedings founded on a notice that failed to meet this requirement could not be sustained, and the subsequent action was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:36:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139881" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 376 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102835</link>
      <description>A show cause notice demanding duty was invalid because it was served after the amended proviso to Section 11A took effect and was issued by a subordinate officer without the prior approval of the jurisdictional Commissioner. Where the demand fell within the prescribed limit, that approval was a mandatory statutory condition, and its absence rendered the notice defective. Proceedings founded on a notice that failed to meet this requirement could not be sustained, and the subsequent action was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102835</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>