<?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>2015 (3) TMI 25 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257089</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the writ petition regarding the seizure and confiscation of gold biscuits by the Customs Department. The Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) found the Department failed to prove its case, setting aside the confiscation and penalties, granting appellants consequential benefits. However, CEGAT did not quantify or specify payment. The court clarified it does not execute such directions but directed the petitioner to seek assessment and payment through proper channels as per the law. The petitioner&#039;s claim for return of gold or compensation was not addressed by the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Sep 2017 12:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=377717" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 25 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257089</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the writ petition regarding the seizure and confiscation of gold biscuits by the Customs Department. The Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) found the Department failed to prove its case, setting aside the confiscation and penalties, granting appellants consequential benefits. However, CEGAT did not quantify or specify payment. The court clarified it does not execute such directions but directed the petitioner to seek assessment and payment through proper channels as per the law. The petitioner&#039;s claim for return of gold or compensation was not addressed by the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257089</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>