<?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>2013 (12) TMI 1039 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241374</link>
    <description>The tribunal concluded that the appellant had already faced sufficient punishment and ordered the withdrawal of the revocation of the CHA license, subject to the forfeiture of the entire security deposit. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the final order withdrawing the revocation of the CHA license No. 11/90, subject to the forfeiture of the security deposit, pronounced in court on 16-2-2012.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:04:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340350" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 1039 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241374</link>
      <description>The tribunal concluded that the appellant had already faced sufficient punishment and ordered the withdrawal of the revocation of the CHA license, subject to the forfeiture of the entire security deposit. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the final order withdrawing the revocation of the CHA license No. 11/90, subject to the forfeiture of the security deposit, pronounced in court on 16-2-2012.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241374</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>