<?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>2009 (12) TMI 232 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76565</link>
    <description>The court upheld the Settlement Commission&#039;s order dated 4-6-2007, settling duty liability at Rs. 82,25,502.45 against a demand of Rs. 3,87,63,211. The allegations of unauthorized sales and forgery were not substantiated with concrete evidence. The respondents&#039; compliance with customs regulations was acknowledged. The court emphasized the Settlement Commission&#039;s discretionary powers and refrained from interfering with its decision, dismissing the writ petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114771" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 232 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76565</link>
      <description>The court upheld the Settlement Commission&#039;s order dated 4-6-2007, settling duty liability at Rs. 82,25,502.45 against a demand of Rs. 3,87,63,211. The allegations of unauthorized sales and forgery were not substantiated with concrete evidence. The respondents&#039; compliance with customs regulations was acknowledged. The court emphasized the Settlement Commission&#039;s discretionary powers and refrained from interfering with its decision, dismissing the writ petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76565</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>