<?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 (12) TMI 103 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52383</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders due to the failure to extend the period within the prescribed time frame, as per the proviso to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment highlighted the significance of showing sufficient cause for extending the time period and affirmed the right of the appellants to reclaim the seized goods based on the interpretation of the Punjab and Haryana High Court&#039;s decision in a similar case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:19:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90860" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 103 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52383</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders due to the failure to extend the period within the prescribed time frame, as per the proviso to Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment highlighted the significance of showing sufficient cause for extending the time period and affirmed the right of the appellants to reclaim the seized goods based on the interpretation of the Punjab and Haryana High Court&#039;s decision in a similar case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52383</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>