<?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>2012 (4) TMI 144 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211820</link>
    <description>Rejection of an extension request under Notification No. 158/95-Cus required a fresh speaking order by the jurisdictional Commissioner, after granting the applicants a hearing. Because the request was conveyed only by letter, without a reasoned order and without affording an opportunity of hearing, the rejection was procedurally defective. The order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185237" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (4) TMI 144 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211820</link>
      <description>Rejection of an extension request under Notification No. 158/95-Cus required a fresh speaking order by the jurisdictional Commissioner, after granting the applicants a hearing. Because the request was conveyed only by letter, without a reasoned order and without affording an opportunity of hearing, the rejection was procedurally defective. The order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211820</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>