<?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>1994 (7) TMI 99 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT KERALA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44056</link>
    <description>Eligibility under a customs reward scheme must be tested strictly against the guidelines in force on the date of seizure. The exclusion for officers above Assistant Collector level applied only within the specified customs or excise hierarchy and did not bar a member of the Indian Police Service, who fell outside that classification; the rejection of the first claim was therefore unsustainable. A later ceiling of Rs. one lakh per officer could not be applied retrospectively where the governing guidelines at the relevant time contained no such limit; the second claim had to be reconsidered afresh under the earlier guidelines. The rejection orders were accordingly set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:35:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82585" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (7) TMI 99 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT KERALA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44056</link>
      <description>Eligibility under a customs reward scheme must be tested strictly against the guidelines in force on the date of seizure. The exclusion for officers above Assistant Collector level applied only within the specified customs or excise hierarchy and did not bar a member of the Indian Police Service, who fell outside that classification; the rejection of the first claim was therefore unsustainable. A later ceiling of Rs. one lakh per officer could not be applied retrospectively where the governing guidelines at the relevant time contained no such limit; the second claim had to be reconsidered afresh under the earlier guidelines. The rejection orders were accordingly set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44056</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>