<?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>2012 (2) TMI 487 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172306</link>
    <description>The appeal under section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 was dismissed by the tribunal, upholding the penalty of 3.00 lakhs imposed on the appellant for actions resulting in revenue loss, despite the appellant&#039;s claim of lack of personal involvement in the transaction conducted by his father-in-law. The court found no substantial legal question arising from the factual findings and advised the appellant to file a separate application before the tribunal to contest the grounds on merits. The appeal was dismissed without costs due to the lack of reflection of the appellant&#039;s contentions in the impugned order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2015 11:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=393854" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (2) TMI 487 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172306</link>
      <description>The appeal under section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 was dismissed by the tribunal, upholding the penalty of 3.00 lakhs imposed on the appellant for actions resulting in revenue loss, despite the appellant&#039;s claim of lack of personal involvement in the transaction conducted by his father-in-law. The court found no substantial legal question arising from the factual findings and advised the appellant to file a separate application before the tribunal to contest the grounds on merits. The appeal was dismissed without costs due to the lack of reflection of the appellant&#039;s contentions in the impugned order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172306</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>