<?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>2024 (2) TMI 1189 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450038</link>
    <description>Immunity granted by the Settlement Commission to one noticee cannot be automatically extended to a co-noticee, because each noticee retains independent liability unless the law specifically provides otherwise. The Tribunal&#039;s view that settlement-based discharge of one noticee also entitled the respondent to penalty relief was held unsustainable. The High Court set aside that approach and remitted the appeal to the Tribunal for determination on merits in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Sep 2024 14:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=744813" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (2) TMI 1189 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450038</link>
      <description>Immunity granted by the Settlement Commission to one noticee cannot be automatically extended to a co-noticee, because each noticee retains independent liability unless the law specifically provides otherwise. The Tribunal&#039;s view that settlement-based discharge of one noticee also entitled the respondent to penalty relief was held unsustainable. The High Court set aside that approach and remitted the appeal to the Tribunal for determination on merits in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450038</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>