<?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>2017 (4) TMI 836 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341866</link>
    <description>The court found the show-cause notice valid and maintainable, emphasizing its necessity before final adjudication against the private limited companies. It upheld the jurisdiction of the authority issuing the notice under the Customs Act. The court clarified that the notice to the petitioner was not a second notice on the same allegations, distinguishing it from previous cases. Previous adjudications and appeals did not hinder the current notice, and the court addressed the delay by directing the appellate authority to decide related appeals first for procedural fairness. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, with directions for sequential adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Aug 2017 11:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=466265" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 836 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341866</link>
      <description>The court found the show-cause notice valid and maintainable, emphasizing its necessity before final adjudication against the private limited companies. It upheld the jurisdiction of the authority issuing the notice under the Customs Act. The court clarified that the notice to the petitioner was not a second notice on the same allegations, distinguishing it from previous cases. Previous adjudications and appeals did not hinder the current notice, and the court addressed the delay by directing the appellate authority to decide related appeals first for procedural fairness. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, with directions for sequential adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341866</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>