<?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>High Court Affirms Settlement Commission&#039;s Authority; Revenue&#039;s Argument on Bill of Entry and Baggage Rejected. Sections 127(A) &amp; 127(B) Highlighted.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=13860</link>
    <description>Jurisdiction on the Settlement Commission - On a careful reading of Sections 127(A) and 127(B) the Revenue’s contention that since the applicant had not filed bill of entry or that the case was one relating to baggage and therefore did not involve short levy or non-levy was without force - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2013 10:46:17 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2013 10:46:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=299397" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>High Court Affirms Settlement Commission&#039;s Authority; Revenue&#039;s Argument on Bill of Entry and Baggage Rejected. Sections 127(A) &amp; 127(B) Highlighted.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=13860</link>
      <description>Jurisdiction on the Settlement Commission - On a careful reading of Sections 127(A) and 127(B) the Revenue’s contention that since the applicant had not filed bill of entry or that the case was one relating to baggage and therefore did not involve short levy or non-levy was without force - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2013 10:46:17 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=13860</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>