<?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>1997 (9) TMI 609 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175616</link>
    <description>Sections 45 to 47-A of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 are described as a regulatory compounding scheme for excise offences, enabling seizure, confiscation, compounding, and release of stock on payment of prescribed fee or value. The text states that the scheme is aimed at curbing illicit liquor trade and duty evasion, is confined by statutory limits, and is not arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). It also notes that the compounding fee and direction to pay the value of seized stock were sustained because no material showed they exceeded the statutory limits, and the objection based on absence of notice before confiscation was rejected on the facts stated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:15:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=406940" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 609 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175616</link>
      <description>Sections 45 to 47-A of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 are described as a regulatory compounding scheme for excise offences, enabling seizure, confiscation, compounding, and release of stock on payment of prescribed fee or value. The text states that the scheme is aimed at curbing illicit liquor trade and duty evasion, is confined by statutory limits, and is not arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). It also notes that the compounding fee and direction to pay the value of seized stock were sustained because no material showed they exceeded the statutory limits, and the objection based on absence of notice before confiscation was rejected on the facts stated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175616</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>