<?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>1994 (9) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43968</link>
    <description>The Delhi HC directed implementation of the customs order dropping the show-cause proceedings and required the necessary endorsement in the DEEC Book. To protect revenue, it permitted the endorsement to be made on execution of a legal undertaking under the Handbook of Procedure, but it refused to insist on a bank guarantee. The Court also declined to direct the Tribunal to dispose of the departmental appeal within a fixed time, treating that further relief as unnecessary.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:41:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82497" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (9) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43968</link>
      <description>The Delhi HC directed implementation of the customs order dropping the show-cause proceedings and required the necessary endorsement in the DEEC Book. To protect revenue, it permitted the endorsement to be made on execution of a legal undertaking under the Handbook of Procedure, but it refused to insist on a bank guarantee. The Court also declined to direct the Tribunal to dispose of the departmental appeal within a fixed time, treating that further relief as unnecessary.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43968</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>