<?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 (12) TMI 890 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763310</link>
    <description>Once the renewal application for Pre-Shipment Inspection Agency status was completed online with e-payment, the earlier demand drafts ceased to be necessary, and the respondent&#039;s statement that the application would be processed within two weeks was recorded as binding. The respondent was therefore required to process the renewal application within that time and return or refund the earlier demand drafts to the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:58:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=783254" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 890 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763310</link>
      <description>Once the renewal application for Pre-Shipment Inspection Agency status was completed online with e-payment, the earlier demand drafts ceased to be necessary, and the respondent&#039;s statement that the application would be processed within two weeks was recorded as binding. The respondent was therefore required to process the renewal application within that time and return or refund the earlier demand drafts to the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763310</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>