<?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>2008 (1) TMI 50 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3322</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the Compounding Authority and the Delhi High Court, ruling that the application for compounding was not maintainable due to contradictions in the accused&#039;s statements and the Authority&#039;s failure to verify disclosures properly. The Court emphasized the importance of thorough verification and consistency in disclosures for compounding offences under the Customs Act, allowing the civil appeal by the Department.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42674" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 50 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3322</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the Compounding Authority and the Delhi High Court, ruling that the application for compounding was not maintainable due to contradictions in the accused&#039;s statements and the Authority&#039;s failure to verify disclosures properly. The Court emphasized the importance of thorough verification and consistency in disclosures for compounding offences under the Customs Act, allowing the civil appeal by the Department.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3322</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>