<?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>1985 (11) TMI 167 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72913</link>
    <description>The court upheld the validity of the customs notifications, legality of the seizure of silver bars, order by the Collector of Central Excise, and imposition of penalty. It found the Customs Preventive Officers had the authority for the search and seizure, and their belief in the liability of confiscation was reasonable. The writ petitions were dismissed, ruling in favor of the authorities and imposing costs on the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111192" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (11) TMI 167 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72913</link>
      <description>The court upheld the validity of the customs notifications, legality of the seizure of silver bars, order by the Collector of Central Excise, and imposition of penalty. It found the Customs Preventive Officers had the authority for the search and seizure, and their belief in the liability of confiscation was reasonable. The writ petitions were dismissed, ruling in favor of the authorities and imposing costs on the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72913</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>