<?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>2001 (7) TMI 145 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46174</link>
    <description>A revisional order under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot operate as a remand because the provision permits only annulment or modification. The proposed remand was therefore treated as inconsistent with the statutory limits on revisional power. By agreement of the parties, the matter was directed to be decided afresh by the Joint Secretary rather than sent back to the Assistant Collector, and the decision was to be taken within six months.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:17:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84700" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 145 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46174</link>
      <description>A revisional order under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot operate as a remand because the provision permits only annulment or modification. The proposed remand was therefore treated as inconsistent with the statutory limits on revisional power. By agreement of the parties, the matter was directed to be decided afresh by the Joint Secretary rather than sent back to the Assistant Collector, and the decision was to be taken within six months.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46174</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>