<?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>2009 (7) TMI 1225 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171899</link>
    <description>The Bombay High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Department&#039;s writ petition challenging a Settlement Commission order passed by the Principal Bench at New Delhi, because the proper forum was the Delhi High Court. The Department had therefore approached the wrong court, and the validity of the order could not be tested in Bombay. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the Settlement Commission&#039;s decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2017 11:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=392626" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 1225 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171899</link>
      <description>The Bombay High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Department&#039;s writ petition challenging a Settlement Commission order passed by the Principal Bench at New Delhi, because the proper forum was the Delhi High Court. The Department had therefore approached the wrong court, and the validity of the order could not be tested in Bombay. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the Settlement Commission&#039;s decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171899</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>