<?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 (5) TMI 1673 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279972</link>
    <description>The mandatory time schedule for initiating action against a Customs House Agent was not followed, as the show cause notice was issued long after the offence report and the order was passed after further delay. Because the departmental action did not comply with the prescribed timeline, forfeiture of the security deposit and the penalty were set aside. The question of cancellation of the CHA licence was left untouched, since it was not part of the challenge before the tribunal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2019 06:09:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=566884" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 1673 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279972</link>
      <description>The mandatory time schedule for initiating action against a Customs House Agent was not followed, as the show cause notice was issued long after the offence report and the order was passed after further delay. Because the departmental action did not comply with the prescribed timeline, forfeiture of the security deposit and the penalty were set aside. The question of cancellation of the CHA licence was left untouched, since it was not part of the challenge before the tribunal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279972</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>