<?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>1979 (8) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40794</link>
    <description>A fiscal statute aimed at preventing evasion of excise duty was read to include incidental investigative powers over bonded warehouse goods. Where there was bona fide suspicion of substitution of inferior tobacco, excise officers could take samples as a reasonable aid to inquiry, and the absence of a stock-weight discrepancy did not negate that power. The same statutory scheme also permitted arrest on reasonable belief that an offence under the Act had been committed. Use of a traders&#039; panel to analyse the samples was treated as an investigative choice, not a jurisdictional defect, and the authorities&#039; actions were upheld as within statutory power.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 May 2010 17:42:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79325" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (8) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40794</link>
      <description>A fiscal statute aimed at preventing evasion of excise duty was read to include incidental investigative powers over bonded warehouse goods. Where there was bona fide suspicion of substitution of inferior tobacco, excise officers could take samples as a reasonable aid to inquiry, and the absence of a stock-weight discrepancy did not negate that power. The same statutory scheme also permitted arrest on reasonable belief that an offence under the Act had been committed. Use of a traders&#039; panel to analyse the samples was treated as an investigative choice, not a jurisdictional defect, and the authorities&#039; actions were upheld as within statutory power.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40794</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>