<?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>2005 (7) TMI 421 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115581</link>
    <description>An instrument executed outside India but intended for use in India is chargeable to stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. When such an instrument is produced before an authority empowered to receive evidence or before a public office and appears not duly stamped, Section 33 authorises impounding. The Tribunal therefore had jurisdiction to impound the unstamped power of attorney and to require payment of the deficient duty together with statutory penalty under Section 40(1)(b).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 May 2012 12:17:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152580" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 421 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115581</link>
      <description>An instrument executed outside India but intended for use in India is chargeable to stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. When such an instrument is produced before an authority empowered to receive evidence or before a public office and appears not duly stamped, Section 33 authorises impounding. The Tribunal therefore had jurisdiction to impound the unstamped power of attorney and to require payment of the deficient duty together with statutory penalty under Section 40(1)(b).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115581</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>