<?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>2015 (12) TMI 4 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268700</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the impugned order extending the time limit under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act was bad in law and set it aside. It directed the release of the detained goods after obtaining a PD Bond or Indemnity Bond. The appeal was allowed in part, permitting the Revenue to retain the cash seized pending adjudication of the show-cause notice, and directing the return of the detained goods within 20 days.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2016 11:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=407101" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 4 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268700</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the impugned order extending the time limit under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act was bad in law and set it aside. It directed the release of the detained goods after obtaining a PD Bond or Indemnity Bond. The appeal was allowed in part, permitting the Revenue to retain the cash seized pending adjudication of the show-cause notice, and directing the return of the detained goods within 20 days.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268700</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>