<?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>2011 (6) TMI 32 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204090</link>
    <description>The requirement to produce the registration certificate at import clearance was treated as satisfied where the importer had applied in time, the goods were provisionally cleared on bond, and the delay in issuance was attributable to the issuing authority. Later production of the certificate was accepted as compliance with the stipulated condition in light of the cited precedents. The impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2014 14:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=177634" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (6) TMI 32 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204090</link>
      <description>The requirement to produce the registration certificate at import clearance was treated as satisfied where the importer had applied in time, the goods were provisionally cleared on bond, and the delay in issuance was attributable to the issuing authority. Later production of the certificate was accepted as compliance with the stipulated condition in light of the cited precedents. The impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204090</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>