<?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>2016 (4) TMI 1106 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326992</link>
    <description>The court quashed the Corrigendum/Addendum issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) after the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission (CCESC) decided to proceed with the petitioners&#039; settlement applications. The court held that the DRI lacked jurisdiction to change the duty demand classification at that stage. The petitioners were allowed to revive their application before the CCESC, and the writ petition was granted without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2016 17:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=426112" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 1106 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326992</link>
      <description>The court quashed the Corrigendum/Addendum issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) after the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission (CCESC) decided to proceed with the petitioners&#039; settlement applications. The court held that the DRI lacked jurisdiction to change the duty demand classification at that stage. The petitioners were allowed to revive their application before the CCESC, and the writ petition was granted without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326992</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>