<?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>2022 (10) TMI 1190 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309105</link>
    <description>The Tribunal affirmed that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) prevails over the Customs Act, limiting customs authorities&#039; jurisdiction during the insolvency process. The Tribunal held that customs authorities cannot claim title over goods or initiate recovery once liquidation commences. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled that an Intervenor cannot introduce new issues but can only support existing arguments. The appeal was dismissed, the stay was vacated, and time spent in litigation was excluded from the Liquidator&#039;s available period. The application for condonation of delay was rejected due to excessive delay.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2023 21:25:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=722310" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (10) TMI 1190 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309105</link>
      <description>The Tribunal affirmed that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) prevails over the Customs Act, limiting customs authorities&#039; jurisdiction during the insolvency process. The Tribunal held that customs authorities cannot claim title over goods or initiate recovery once liquidation commences. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled that an Intervenor cannot introduce new issues but can only support existing arguments. The appeal was dismissed, the stay was vacated, and time spent in litigation was excluded from the Liquidator&#039;s available period. The application for condonation of delay was rejected due to excessive delay.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309105</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>