<?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>2019 (6) TMI 26 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380949</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in a case concerning the revocation of a Customs Broker&#039;s License due to a breach of time limits set in Regulation 22 of the CBLR 2013. Relying on legal precedents emphasizing strict adherence to time limits in regulatory proceedings, the Tribunal held that the revocation and forfeiture of the security deposit could not be upheld. The decision was based on the mandatory nature of time limits, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Jun 2019 07:54:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=573553" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (6) TMI 26 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380949</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in a case concerning the revocation of a Customs Broker&#039;s License due to a breach of time limits set in Regulation 22 of the CBLR 2013. Relying on legal precedents emphasizing strict adherence to time limits in regulatory proceedings, the Tribunal held that the revocation and forfeiture of the security deposit could not be upheld. The decision was based on the mandatory nature of time limits, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380949</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>