<?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>2019 (7) TMI 466 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382770</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the Tribunal&#039;s decision to set aside penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The court held that the acquittal of the respondents by the criminal court, based on the same facts and evidence, prevented the imposition of penalties under Section 112(b). Upholding the principle of avoiding double jeopardy, the court found no additional evidence to support the penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Nov 2019 13:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=578726" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 466 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382770</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the Tribunal&#039;s decision to set aside penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The court held that the acquittal of the respondents by the criminal court, based on the same facts and evidence, prevented the imposition of penalties under Section 112(b). Upholding the principle of avoiding double jeopardy, the court found no additional evidence to support the penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382770</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>