<?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>2006 (8) TMI 193 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47755</link>
    <description>The Court upheld the order of the Settlement Commission rejecting the petitioners&#039; application under the Customs Act and Central Excise Act, emphasizing the mandatory waiting period of 180 days from the date of seizure before filing such applications. The Court highlighted the necessity of compliance with statutory requirements, including obtaining a report from the Commissioner of Customs and ensuring satisfaction of conditions under the relevant section. Despite arguments regarding the lack of a personal hearing and procedural lapses, the Court found the application premature and dismissed the petition, underscoring the significance of adhering to the prescribed waiting period for settlement through the Commission.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2020 17:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86273" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (8) TMI 193 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47755</link>
      <description>The Court upheld the order of the Settlement Commission rejecting the petitioners&#039; application under the Customs Act and Central Excise Act, emphasizing the mandatory waiting period of 180 days from the date of seizure before filing such applications. The Court highlighted the necessity of compliance with statutory requirements, including obtaining a report from the Commissioner of Customs and ensuring satisfaction of conditions under the relevant section. Despite arguments regarding the lack of a personal hearing and procedural lapses, the Court found the application premature and dismissed the petition, underscoring the significance of adhering to the prescribed waiting period for settlement through the Commission.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47755</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>