<?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 (11) TMI 1403 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371060</link>
    <description>The Court declined to interfere with the challenge to show cause notices, emphasizing the need for adjudication and urging cooperation. However, the Court found the department&#039;s action of placing the petitioner on the &quot;Alert&quot; list impermissible, directing removal of their name. The petition was disposed of without expressing an opinion on liability for late fine charges, leaving the adjudicating authority to decide independently based on evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Apr 2019 14:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=544355" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 1403 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371060</link>
      <description>The Court declined to interfere with the challenge to show cause notices, emphasizing the need for adjudication and urging cooperation. However, the Court found the department&#039;s action of placing the petitioner on the &quot;Alert&quot; list impermissible, directing removal of their name. The petition was disposed of without expressing an opinion on liability for late fine charges, leaving the adjudicating authority to decide independently based on evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371060</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>