<?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 (6) TMI 398 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328689</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, determining that the revocation of the CHA license was without jurisdiction due to non-compliance with the mandatory time limits under CHALR 2004. The impugned order was found to be barred by limitation as the show cause notice was issued beyond the prescribed 90-day period, rendering it unsustainable. The decision emphasized the importance of adhering to time limits in regulatory proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2016 17:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=431194" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 398 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328689</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, determining that the revocation of the CHA license was without jurisdiction due to non-compliance with the mandatory time limits under CHALR 2004. The impugned order was found to be barred by limitation as the show cause notice was issued beyond the prescribed 90-day period, rendering it unsustainable. The decision emphasized the importance of adhering to time limits in regulatory proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328689</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>