<?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 (7) TMI 547 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363239</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order due to the unjustified delay in issuing the Show Cause Notice for license revocation, which breached the statutory time limit under Regulation 20 of CBLR 2013. The Tribunal emphasized procedural compliance, disregarding the argument that a prior license revocation absolved the need for adherence to the 90-day period. The appellant&#039;s appeal was allowed, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the time limit and the significance of following regulatory provisions in such cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2020 12:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=526353" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 547 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363239</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order due to the unjustified delay in issuing the Show Cause Notice for license revocation, which breached the statutory time limit under Regulation 20 of CBLR 2013. The Tribunal emphasized procedural compliance, disregarding the argument that a prior license revocation absolved the need for adherence to the 90-day period. The appellant&#039;s appeal was allowed, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the time limit and the significance of following regulatory provisions in such cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363239</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>