<?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>1987 (6) TMI 53 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42173</link>
    <description>Section 128A(2) of the Customs Act expressly empowers the appellate authority to enhance penalty, provided the affected party is given notice and a hearing. That power is not restricted by the fact that no departmental appeal was filed, and the construction is supported by the analogous enhancement power under the income-tax appellate scheme. The commentary concludes that enhancement of penalty is legally valid when procedural safeguards are observed, and the contrary view is erroneous.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:06:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80702" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (6) TMI 53 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42173</link>
      <description>Section 128A(2) of the Customs Act expressly empowers the appellate authority to enhance penalty, provided the affected party is given notice and a hearing. That power is not restricted by the fact that no departmental appeal was filed, and the construction is supported by the analogous enhancement power under the income-tax appellate scheme. The commentary concludes that enhancement of penalty is legally valid when procedural safeguards are observed, and the contrary view is erroneous.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42173</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>