<?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 (8) TMI 1097 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173497</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal against the prohibition order issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, preventing the appellant, a Customs House Agent (CHA), from working at Kandla M.P and SEZ, Mundra. The tribunal held that the prohibition order was an administrative action, and as no provision for appeal against it was identified, the appeal was deemed non-maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:18:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397599" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 1097 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173497</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal against the prohibition order issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, preventing the appellant, a Customs House Agent (CHA), from working at Kandla M.P and SEZ, Mundra. The tribunal held that the prohibition order was an administrative action, and as no provision for appeal against it was identified, the appeal was deemed non-maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173497</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>