<?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>2003 (7) TMI 456 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107876</link>
    <description>A communication merely conveying rejection of renewal of a Customs House Agent licence was treated as non-adjudicatory and therefore not an appealable order before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also declined to condone a 103-day delay, finding the explanation for the late filing insufficient and noting that the renewal request had been made after expiry of the licence. The challenge therefore failed on both limitation and maintainability, and the rejection of renewal remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:35:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144893" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 456 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107876</link>
      <description>A communication merely conveying rejection of renewal of a Customs House Agent licence was treated as non-adjudicatory and therefore not an appealable order before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also declined to condone a 103-day delay, finding the explanation for the late filing insufficient and noting that the renewal request had been made after expiry of the licence. The challenge therefore failed on both limitation and maintainability, and the rejection of renewal remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107876</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>