<?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>2001 (4) TMI 273 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (Department of Revenue - Revis</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96009</link>
    <description>The Inland Air Travel Tax revision scheme recognised departmental locus where the Commissioner of Customs had a direct legal interest in recovery of the levy, so the revision was maintainable. Deposits made by the aircraft lessor under interim court directions did not amount to final discharge of the respondents&#039; IATT demand and interest, because the sums remained subject to pending proceedings and were distinct from the adjudicated liability. The reduced penalty was also left undisturbed, as the appellate authority&#039;s discretion under the penal provision was not shown to be perverse or unreasonable. The demand, interest, and reduced penalty therefore remained intact.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133068" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (4) TMI 273 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (Department of Revenue - Revis</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96009</link>
      <description>The Inland Air Travel Tax revision scheme recognised departmental locus where the Commissioner of Customs had a direct legal interest in recovery of the levy, so the revision was maintainable. Deposits made by the aircraft lessor under interim court directions did not amount to final discharge of the respondents&#039; IATT demand and interest, because the sums remained subject to pending proceedings and were distinct from the adjudicated liability. The reduced penalty was also left undisturbed, as the appellate authority&#039;s discretion under the penal provision was not shown to be perverse or unreasonable. The demand, interest, and reduced penalty therefore remained intact.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96009</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>