<?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>2006 (12) TMI 561 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276412</link>
    <description>The revision concerned only the quantum of sentence for a customs offence. The Gujarat HC considered the long lapse of time since the incident, the substantial imprisonment already undergone, and the absence of any useful purpose in requiring the accused to serve the remaining term. On that basis, the Court interfered only with punishment, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, and maintained the conviction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Nov 2018 12:04:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=541343" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (12) TMI 561 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276412</link>
      <description>The revision concerned only the quantum of sentence for a customs offence. The Gujarat HC considered the long lapse of time since the incident, the substantial imprisonment already undergone, and the absence of any useful purpose in requiring the accused to serve the remaining term. On that basis, the Court interfered only with punishment, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, and maintained the conviction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276412</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>