<?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>2004 (12) TMI 117 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53506</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding no fraud in obtaining the DEPB Scrips and holding that the extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act could not be invoked. The stay application was allowed, and the pre-deposit requirement was waived, with the appeal scheduled for hearing on 17-3-2005.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:16:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91983" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 117 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53506</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding no fraud in obtaining the DEPB Scrips and holding that the extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act could not be invoked. The stay application was allowed, and the pre-deposit requirement was waived, with the appeal scheduled for hearing on 17-3-2005.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53506</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>