<?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 (8) TMI 1605 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366133</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal challenging the forfeiture of the security deposit of the Custom House Agent (CHA) under CHALR, 2004. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that the Revenue lacked the right to file an appeal under the regulations. The decision was based on the absence of specific provisions allowing the Revenue to appeal under CHALR, 2004, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and disposal of the respondent&#039;s cross-objection.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2018 06:53:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=532454" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 1605 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366133</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal challenging the forfeiture of the security deposit of the Custom House Agent (CHA) under CHALR, 2004. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that the Revenue lacked the right to file an appeal under the regulations. The decision was based on the absence of specific provisions allowing the Revenue to appeal under CHALR, 2004, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and disposal of the respondent&#039;s cross-objection.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366133</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>