<?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>2009 (5) TMI 20 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33524</link>
    <description>The SC dismissed the appeal, upholding the CESTAT and HC decisions, because the show-cause notices failed to attribute any alleged infraction to the transferor of the licence. Given absence of reference to the transferor in the notices, the lower tribunals&#039; findings were sustained and no interference warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2025 14:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72154" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 20 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33524</link>
      <description>The SC dismissed the appeal, upholding the CESTAT and HC decisions, because the show-cause notices failed to attribute any alleged infraction to the transferor of the licence. Given absence of reference to the transferor in the notices, the lower tribunals&#039; findings were sustained and no interference warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33524</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>