<?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>1974 (9) TMI 124 - High Court Of Calcutta</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193267</link>
    <description>The Court clarified that the time limit under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act is not a limitation for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 124. It emphasized the need for judicial or quasi-judicial adjudication under Section 129, requiring adherence to principles of natural justice. The Court overturned the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with Section 129(1), highlighting the violation of natural justice. The ex parte order rejecting the application for interim relief was set aside, directing proper disposal by the Board in line with legal requirements. The Court did not address the merits of the penalty imposed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2017 10:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=482185" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (9) TMI 124 - High Court Of Calcutta</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193267</link>
      <description>The Court clarified that the time limit under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act is not a limitation for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 124. It emphasized the need for judicial or quasi-judicial adjudication under Section 129, requiring adherence to principles of natural justice. The Court overturned the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with Section 129(1), highlighting the violation of natural justice. The ex parte order rejecting the application for interim relief was set aside, directing proper disposal by the Board in line with legal requirements. The Court did not address the merits of the penalty imposed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>