<?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>2009 (1) TMI 123 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33281</link>
    <description>Withdrawal of a redemption letter was unsustainable where no prior hearing was given on fulfilment of the export obligation and no cogent reasons supported the withdrawal. An explanation first raised in an affidavit could not cure the absence of reasons in the impugned action. The matter therefore required fresh consideration, with the petitioner to be heard before any fresh decision on the redemption issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71914" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 123 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33281</link>
      <description>Withdrawal of a redemption letter was unsustainable where no prior hearing was given on fulfilment of the export obligation and no cogent reasons supported the withdrawal. An explanation first raised in an affidavit could not cure the absence of reasons in the impugned action. The matter therefore required fresh consideration, with the petitioner to be heard before any fresh decision on the redemption issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33281</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>