<?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 (1) TMI 857 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182361</link>
    <description>The case questions the validity of a show cause notice under section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, issued by an Assistant Commissioner who may not have been the proper officer. The issue revolves around the applicability of Explanation 2 introduced after sub-section 11 of section 28, effective from the Finance Bill, 2011&#039;s presidential assent. Due to uncertainty regarding the enactment of Explanation 2, the case is adjourned for further clarification and proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 May 2016 18:38:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=427392" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 857 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182361</link>
      <description>The case questions the validity of a show cause notice under section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, issued by an Assistant Commissioner who may not have been the proper officer. The issue revolves around the applicability of Explanation 2 introduced after sub-section 11 of section 28, effective from the Finance Bill, 2011&#039;s presidential assent. Due to uncertainty regarding the enactment of Explanation 2, the case is adjourned for further clarification and proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182361</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>