<?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>2020 (2) TMI 769 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392325</link>
    <description>The court ordered that the bank guarantee should be renewed periodically and not encashed until the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) decides on the matter remitted by the Appellate Tribunal. The recovery notice was to be kept in abeyance until the expiry of the specified time limit. The writ petition was finally disposed of with these directions and observations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2020 11:54:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=604316" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 769 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392325</link>
      <description>The court ordered that the bank guarantee should be renewed periodically and not encashed until the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) decides on the matter remitted by the Appellate Tribunal. The recovery notice was to be kept in abeyance until the expiry of the specified time limit. The writ petition was finally disposed of with these directions and observations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392325</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>