<?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>1975 (3) TMI 105 - Calcutta High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127072</link>
    <description>A combined show-cause notice and adjudication under the Customs Act and Defence of India Rules was held valid where the notice set out the factual basis and statutory grounds, the same facts supported both enactments, and the petitioners had repeated opportunities to participate before ex parte disposal. The penalties on the individual partners were upheld because the firm&#039;s liabilities were treated as those of the partners. However, Section 140 of the Customs Act was held inapplicable to confiscation and penalty proceedings, so imposing penalties again on the firm amounted to impermissible double punishment. The penalties on the firm were therefore quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2013 16:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163951" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (3) TMI 105 - Calcutta High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127072</link>
      <description>A combined show-cause notice and adjudication under the Customs Act and Defence of India Rules was held valid where the notice set out the factual basis and statutory grounds, the same facts supported both enactments, and the petitioners had repeated opportunities to participate before ex parte disposal. The penalties on the individual partners were upheld because the firm&#039;s liabilities were treated as those of the partners. However, Section 140 of the Customs Act was held inapplicable to confiscation and penalty proceedings, so imposing penalties again on the firm amounted to impermissible double punishment. The penalties on the firm were therefore quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127072</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>