<?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>2024 (11) TMI 302 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761316</link>
    <description>CESTAT New Delhi dismissed the appellant&#039;s challenge to a show cause notice adjudicated beyond the statutory time limit under section 28(9) of the Customs Act. The tribunal held that the Commissioner provided cogent reasons for the delay, including the appellant&#039;s failure to file timely replies, requests for documents, COVID-19 restrictions affecting proceedings, and subsequent procedural delays. The unamended provisions of section 28(9) governed the notice dated 17.10.2017, requiring adjudication within six months or one year depending on circumstances. Since the appellant made no submissions on the merits and only contested the limitation aspect, the tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner&#039;s order and dismissed the appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Nov 2024 12:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=777044" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 302 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761316</link>
      <description>CESTAT New Delhi dismissed the appellant&#039;s challenge to a show cause notice adjudicated beyond the statutory time limit under section 28(9) of the Customs Act. The tribunal held that the Commissioner provided cogent reasons for the delay, including the appellant&#039;s failure to file timely replies, requests for documents, COVID-19 restrictions affecting proceedings, and subsequent procedural delays. The unamended provisions of section 28(9) governed the notice dated 17.10.2017, requiring adjudication within six months or one year depending on circumstances. Since the appellant made no submissions on the merits and only contested the limitation aspect, the tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner&#039;s order and dismissed the appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761316</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>