<?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>2020 (11) TMI 656 - PATIALA HOUSE COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400901</link>
    <description>Large-scale excise duty evasion allegations are treated as serious economic offences requiring a stricter approach to anticipatory bail, particularly where the applicant is linked to unregistered manufacturing activity and investigation suggests evasive or non-cooperative replies. The stated approach is that the court must weigh the nature of the accusation, the extent of alleged loss, whether pre-arrest relief would hinder effective investigation, and whether custodial interrogation is needed to uncover the full scope of the offence. On that basis, anticipatory bail was declined because deeper custodial probing was found necessary.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2020 11:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=628239" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (11) TMI 656 - PATIALA HOUSE COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400901</link>
      <description>Large-scale excise duty evasion allegations are treated as serious economic offences requiring a stricter approach to anticipatory bail, particularly where the applicant is linked to unregistered manufacturing activity and investigation suggests evasive or non-cooperative replies. The stated approach is that the court must weigh the nature of the accusation, the extent of alleged loss, whether pre-arrest relief would hinder effective investigation, and whether custodial interrogation is needed to uncover the full scope of the offence. On that basis, anticipatory bail was declined because deeper custodial probing was found necessary.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400901</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>