<?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>2003 (7) TMI 199 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52162</link>
    <description>A later statutory notification conferring territorial jurisdiction on the Commissioner of Customs covering Tuticorin prevailed over administrative control arrangements for the EOU. Because the imported capital goods were cleared at Tuticorin and the alleged breaches of customs and exemption conditions arose there, that commissioner could adjudicate the show cause notices and pass orders. A Board circular placing EOUs under the administrative control of the Central Excise Commissioner did not itself create adjudicatory power, and the earlier Larger Bench ruling did not override the later statutory conferment of jurisdiction. The objection to jurisdiction therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2010 16:44:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90640" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 199 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52162</link>
      <description>A later statutory notification conferring territorial jurisdiction on the Commissioner of Customs covering Tuticorin prevailed over administrative control arrangements for the EOU. Because the imported capital goods were cleared at Tuticorin and the alleged breaches of customs and exemption conditions arose there, that commissioner could adjudicate the show cause notices and pass orders. A Board circular placing EOUs under the administrative control of the Central Excise Commissioner did not itself create adjudicatory power, and the earlier Larger Bench ruling did not override the later statutory conferment of jurisdiction. The objection to jurisdiction therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52162</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>