<?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>1982 (10) TMI 212 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189528</link>
    <description>A court cannot reduce a sentence below the statutory minimum where the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act prescribes a mandatory minimum and gives no discretion to award a lesser term on special circumstances. The trial court had imposed the minimum sentence required by the statute, but the High Court reduced imprisonment to the period already undergone and set aside the fine. That reduction was contrary to the statutory mandate and was therefore impermissible; the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2017 18:30:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=455033" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (10) TMI 212 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189528</link>
      <description>A court cannot reduce a sentence below the statutory minimum where the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act prescribes a mandatory minimum and gives no discretion to award a lesser term on special circumstances. The trial court had imposed the minimum sentence required by the statute, but the High Court reduced imprisonment to the period already undergone and set aside the fine. That reduction was contrary to the statutory mandate and was therefore impermissible; the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189528</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>