<?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>2006 (10) TMI 337 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120314</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the forfeiture of the security deposit but not interfering with the suspension and revocation of the license. The decision emphasized the need to adhere to procedural requirements and ensure that actions taken are legally sound and effective within the framework of the relevant regulations and laws.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:28:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157310" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (10) TMI 337 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120314</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the forfeiture of the security deposit but not interfering with the suspension and revocation of the license. The decision emphasized the need to adhere to procedural requirements and ensure that actions taken are legally sound and effective within the framework of the relevant regulations and laws.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120314</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>