<?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>2023 (6) TMI 327 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438753</link>
    <description>Corroborated evidence, including bank officials&#039; testimony, seized materials, chemical analysis and a Section 108 Customs Act statement, was relied on to sustain convictions for conspiracy, forgery, cheating and Customs offences after forged bank realisation certificates were used to obtain ineligible DEPB benefits and the exported goods were found not to be genuine printing ink. The retraction of the Section 108 statement did not displace the prosecution case because it was supported by independent evidence, and the revisional court would not reappreciate concurrent findings absent perversity. The objection that the CBI lacked jurisdiction was rejected because the investigation concerned financial and other interests of the Central Government.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Jun 2023 09:08:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=715893" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (6) TMI 327 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438753</link>
      <description>Corroborated evidence, including bank officials&#039; testimony, seized materials, chemical analysis and a Section 108 Customs Act statement, was relied on to sustain convictions for conspiracy, forgery, cheating and Customs offences after forged bank realisation certificates were used to obtain ineligible DEPB benefits and the exported goods were found not to be genuine printing ink. The retraction of the Section 108 statement did not displace the prosecution case because it was supported by independent evidence, and the revisional court would not reappreciate concurrent findings absent perversity. The objection that the CBI lacked jurisdiction was rejected because the investigation concerned financial and other interests of the Central Government.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438753</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>