<?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 (7) TMI 270 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396601</link>
    <description>The High Court held that issuing a second show cause notice for the same demand when the initial notice was not pursued was impermissible. The Court found that the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on grounds of maintainability was unjustified and directed a reconsideration on merits. It emphasized that if the appellate authority lacked jurisdiction, the appeal should be transferred to the appropriate authority for a decision on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2020 11:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=617244" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (7) TMI 270 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396601</link>
      <description>The High Court held that issuing a second show cause notice for the same demand when the initial notice was not pursued was impermissible. The Court found that the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on grounds of maintainability was unjustified and directed a reconsideration on merits. It emphasized that if the appellate authority lacked jurisdiction, the appeal should be transferred to the appropriate authority for a decision on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396601</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>