<?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>2000 (7) TMI 435 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93934</link>
    <description>Acceptance of a declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme was treated as full and final settlement for persons proceeded against in the same matter, and the jurisdictional High Court had held that proceedings against a co-noticee would abate. The Tribunal noted that the High Court&#039;s order was binding within its territorial jurisdiction and applied that ruling to the appellant&#039;s penalty matter. On that basis, the penalty proceedings against the co-noticee could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:27:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130994" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 435 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93934</link>
      <description>Acceptance of a declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme was treated as full and final settlement for persons proceeded against in the same matter, and the jurisdictional High Court had held that proceedings against a co-noticee would abate. The Tribunal noted that the High Court&#039;s order was binding within its territorial jurisdiction and applied that ruling to the appellant&#039;s penalty matter. On that basis, the penalty proceedings against the co-noticee could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93934</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>