<?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>1966 (3) TMI 75 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160491</link>
    <description>Disposal of imported plant and machinery without prior permission breached the licence conditions incorporated by the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 through its saving and deemed-condition provisions, and that breach was punishable under section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The Court held that the licence conditions requiring use by the licensee and prohibiting transfer without authority formed part of the licence and were violated by the unauthorised sale, so the offence was made out. It further held that the conviction of the person who actually arranged the import and transfer was sustainable despite imperfections in the complaint, because he was treated as the accused and no failure of justice was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Aug 2014 13:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339968" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (3) TMI 75 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160491</link>
      <description>Disposal of imported plant and machinery without prior permission breached the licence conditions incorporated by the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 through its saving and deemed-condition provisions, and that breach was punishable under section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The Court held that the licence conditions requiring use by the licensee and prohibiting transfer without authority formed part of the licence and were violated by the unauthorised sale, so the offence was made out. It further held that the conviction of the person who actually arranged the import and transfer was sustainable despite imperfections in the complaint, because he was treated as the accused and no failure of justice was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160491</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>