<?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>2011 (4) TMI 1395 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182380</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to set aside the demand for customs duty, interest, and penalty against the assessee and individual officers. The Tribunal found no collusion with departmental officers, leading to the rejection of the demand notice invoking a longer period of limitation. The High Court determined that the matter did not fall within its jurisdiction, advising the Revenue to seek further recourse at the Apex Court under relevant sections. As a result, the appeals were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 May 2016 11:24:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=427515" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 1395 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182380</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to set aside the demand for customs duty, interest, and penalty against the assessee and individual officers. The Tribunal found no collusion with departmental officers, leading to the rejection of the demand notice invoking a longer period of limitation. The High Court determined that the matter did not fall within its jurisdiction, advising the Revenue to seek further recourse at the Apex Court under relevant sections. As a result, the appeals were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182380</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>