<?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 (8) TMI 336 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262419</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court quashed the penalties imposed on Mr. Atul H. Mehta and Mr. Gerson Da Cunha in a case concerning misdeclaration of engine capacities and prices in the import of Audi cars. The Court found no evidence of their involvement in the conspiracy and noted their lack of personal gain from the misdeclaration. Consequently, the penalties and related prosecution proceedings against both appellants were set aside. Additionally, appeals filed by Mr. S. A. Futehally&#039;s legal heirs were dismissed as abated, and a show cause notice issued to M/s Hindustan Dorr Oliver Limited for a differential duty amount was upheld based on the extended period of limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=392673" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 336 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262419</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court quashed the penalties imposed on Mr. Atul H. Mehta and Mr. Gerson Da Cunha in a case concerning misdeclaration of engine capacities and prices in the import of Audi cars. The Court found no evidence of their involvement in the conspiracy and noted their lack of personal gain from the misdeclaration. Consequently, the penalties and related prosecution proceedings against both appellants were set aside. Additionally, appeals filed by Mr. S. A. Futehally&#039;s legal heirs were dismissed as abated, and a show cause notice issued to M/s Hindustan Dorr Oliver Limited for a differential duty amount was upheld based on the extended period of limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262419</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>