<?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 30 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380953</link>
    <description>The Court found no legal justification for the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence&#039;s instructions to withhold the bank guarantee/security deposited by the Petitioner. The instructions were quashed, and MMTC was directed to release the security amount. The Adjudication Officer was instructed to pass the adjudication order within three months if no further hearings were planned. The petition was allowed accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Sep 2019 15:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=573557" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (6) TMI 30 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380953</link>
      <description>The Court found no legal justification for the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence&#039;s instructions to withhold the bank guarantee/security deposited by the Petitioner. The instructions were quashed, and MMTC was directed to release the security amount. The Adjudication Officer was instructed to pass the adjudication order within three months if no further hearings were planned. The petition was allowed accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380953</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>