<?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>2008 (2) TMI 722 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123393</link>
    <description>An administrative public notice did not create an enforceable right to have an appeal retained at the Principal Bench in New Delhi merely because the appellant&#039;s head office was there. That notice was later superseded by another public notice requiring cases arising within a Zonal Bench&#039;s jurisdiction to be filed and heard by that Bench. Because the cause of action arose in Mumbai and the import, adjudication, and connected proceedings all took place there, the appeal was properly linked to the Mumbai Bench. The request to entertain the appeal in New Delhi was declined and the record was directed to be transferred to the Regional Bench at Mumbai.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:57:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160360" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 722 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123393</link>
      <description>An administrative public notice did not create an enforceable right to have an appeal retained at the Principal Bench in New Delhi merely because the appellant&#039;s head office was there. That notice was later superseded by another public notice requiring cases arising within a Zonal Bench&#039;s jurisdiction to be filed and heard by that Bench. Because the cause of action arose in Mumbai and the import, adjudication, and connected proceedings all took place there, the appeal was properly linked to the Mumbai Bench. The request to entertain the appeal in New Delhi was declined and the record was directed to be transferred to the Regional Bench at Mumbai.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123393</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>