<?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 (5) TMI 819 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122441</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled that the custodian appointed by the Commissioner of Customs was not liable to pay interest on unpaid amounts, as the charges were for customs staff salaries, not custodian fees. It was held that the Commissioner&#039;s order seeking these charges was not an adjudicatory decision under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeals and ordered their return to the appellant, emphasizing that the Act does not empower the recovery of sums from a custodian by the Commissioner or subordinate officers.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:44:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159426" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 819 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122441</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled that the custodian appointed by the Commissioner of Customs was not liable to pay interest on unpaid amounts, as the charges were for customs staff salaries, not custodian fees. It was held that the Commissioner&#039;s order seeking these charges was not an adjudicatory decision under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeals and ordered their return to the appellant, emphasizing that the Act does not empower the recovery of sums from a custodian by the Commissioner or subordinate officers.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122441</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>