<?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>2018 (5) TMI 1426 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360862</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Order of Prohibition issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore against the appellant, a licensed Customs Broker accused of allowing unauthorized use of their license for financial gain. Despite arguments challenging the decision, the Tribunal found serious violations of CBLR 2013 and refused to set aside the prohibition order. However, following the Madras High Court decision, the appellant was granted the opportunity to present additional evidence to prove innocence. The appeal was disposed of without overturning the prohibition order, directing the Commissioner to reconsider the decision after providing a post-decisional hearing opportunity to the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2018 08:12:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=521457" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 1426 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360862</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Order of Prohibition issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore against the appellant, a licensed Customs Broker accused of allowing unauthorized use of their license for financial gain. Despite arguments challenging the decision, the Tribunal found serious violations of CBLR 2013 and refused to set aside the prohibition order. However, following the Madras High Court decision, the appellant was granted the opportunity to present additional evidence to prove innocence. The appeal was disposed of without overturning the prohibition order, directing the Commissioner to reconsider the decision after providing a post-decisional hearing opportunity to the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360862</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>