<?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>2007 (9) TMI 647 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182425</link>
    <description>The appeals challenging the confiscation of gold and penalty under the Customs Act were dismissed. The court found that the authorities had already considered the applicability of Section 125, which allows for a fine in lieu of confiscation, and rejected the argument raised by the appellants. As the appellants had not raised this point earlier in the proceedings, the court held that the appeals lacked merit and upheld the decision of the Tribunal and appellate authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 May 2016 12:31:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=427661" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (9) TMI 647 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182425</link>
      <description>The appeals challenging the confiscation of gold and penalty under the Customs Act were dismissed. The court found that the authorities had already considered the applicability of Section 125, which allows for a fine in lieu of confiscation, and rejected the argument raised by the appellants. As the appellants had not raised this point earlier in the proceedings, the court held that the appeals lacked merit and upheld the decision of the Tribunal and appellate authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182425</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>