<?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>1988 (3) TMI 82 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42331</link>
    <description>The court rejected the petitioner&#039;s contention of limitation for imposing a penalty for cargo shortage. The court found the penalty increase from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 2,50,000 unjustified as it lacked proper reasoning, reverting the penalty amount to Rs. 2 lakhs. The court directed the already paid amount to be appropriated towards the penalty, eliminating the demand for the additional sum of Rs. 50,000. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs in the matter.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:21:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80860" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (3) TMI 82 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42331</link>
      <description>The court rejected the petitioner&#039;s contention of limitation for imposing a penalty for cargo shortage. The court found the penalty increase from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 2,50,000 unjustified as it lacked proper reasoning, reverting the penalty amount to Rs. 2 lakhs. The court directed the already paid amount to be appropriated towards the penalty, eliminating the demand for the additional sum of Rs. 50,000. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs in the matter.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42331</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>