<?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>2021 (11) TMI 368 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414587</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court held that the Additional Director General, DRI lacked jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice under section 28 of the Customs Act, as only the initial assessing officer can exercise such power. Consequently, all proceedings based on this notice, including the order for confiscation and penalty, were deemed invalid. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Commissioner of Customs&#039; order and declaring the DRI&#039;s actions as without jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2021 08:51:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=660860" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (11) TMI 368 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414587</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court held that the Additional Director General, DRI lacked jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice under section 28 of the Customs Act, as only the initial assessing officer can exercise such power. Consequently, all proceedings based on this notice, including the order for confiscation and penalty, were deemed invalid. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Commissioner of Customs&#039; order and declaring the DRI&#039;s actions as without jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414587</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>