<?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>1997 (7) TMI 146 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44662</link>
    <description>A notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not subject to the time limit in Section 110(1), as extended by its proviso, because Section 124 does not prescribe any limitation period for service of notice. The Court followed the settled position that the seizure-related notice period in Section 110 does not control notice under Section 124, and earlier decisions had reached the same conclusion. The issue was answered against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2015 17:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83191" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (7) TMI 146 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44662</link>
      <description>A notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not subject to the time limit in Section 110(1), as extended by its proviso, because Section 124 does not prescribe any limitation period for service of notice. The Court followed the settled position that the seizure-related notice period in Section 110 does not control notice under Section 124, and earlier decisions had reached the same conclusion. The issue was answered against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44662</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>