<?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>2010 (4) TMI 953 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155559</link>
    <description>A legal heir may continue proceedings relating to a deceased Customs House Agent only if the statutory conditions for acting as a Customs House Agent are satisfied. Rule 22 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules permits substitution by a successor-in-interest or legal representative, but continuation is ineffective where the applicant cannot lawfully function as a Customs House Agent. Under Regulation 16(2), the heir must be a major and an H card holder; as the applicant lacked H card status, she was not eligible to obtain effective relief through impleadment. The Tribunal also noted that it was not the proper forum to remove the stigma said to arise from the Commissioner&#039;s findings, and the appeal was treated as abated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Sep 2013 14:42:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172590" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 953 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155559</link>
      <description>A legal heir may continue proceedings relating to a deceased Customs House Agent only if the statutory conditions for acting as a Customs House Agent are satisfied. Rule 22 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules permits substitution by a successor-in-interest or legal representative, but continuation is ineffective where the applicant cannot lawfully function as a Customs House Agent. Under Regulation 16(2), the heir must be a major and an H card holder; as the applicant lacked H card status, she was not eligible to obtain effective relief through impleadment. The Tribunal also noted that it was not the proper forum to remove the stigma said to arise from the Commissioner&#039;s findings, and the appeal was treated as abated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155559</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>