<?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>1995 (1) TMI 86 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44149</link>
    <description>A fiscal notification was held inapplicable on the facts, so it could not invalidate the penalty order. The court also treated the statutory appeal against the penalty as an efficacious alternate remedy and held that writ jurisdiction should not be used to bypass it. On that basis, the challenge to the penalty failed, and the departmental action was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:20:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82678" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (1) TMI 86 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44149</link>
      <description>A fiscal notification was held inapplicable on the facts, so it could not invalidate the penalty order. The court also treated the statutory appeal against the penalty as an efficacious alternate remedy and held that writ jurisdiction should not be used to bypass it. On that basis, the challenge to the penalty failed, and the departmental action was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44149</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>