<?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>1997 (12) TMI 285 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87928</link>
    <description>Delay in filing the reference application was condoned on the facts placed before the Tribunal, but the proposed reference failed because it challenged only the Tribunal&#039;s appreciation and sufficiency of evidence in setting aside penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Such issues do not raise a question of law for reference jurisdiction, so the application was not maintainable on the merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:20:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124994" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (12) TMI 285 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87928</link>
      <description>Delay in filing the reference application was condoned on the facts placed before the Tribunal, but the proposed reference failed because it challenged only the Tribunal&#039;s appreciation and sufficiency of evidence in setting aside penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Such issues do not raise a question of law for reference jurisdiction, so the application was not maintainable on the merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87928</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>