<?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>1970 (6) TMI 13 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45685</link>
    <description>Transporting tobacco without a valid transport permit or sale note was treated as a clear contravention of the transport rule, and confiscation was sustained. The authorities accepted the explanation for delayed production of the sale note but found, on the material before them, that the seized goods differed in variety and quantity from those described in the note; those concurrent factual findings were supported by the record. The revisional authority adopted those findings and merely reduced the fine and penalty, so the absence of a detailed revisional order did not justify interference and no breach of natural justice was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:20:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84212" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (6) TMI 13 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45685</link>
      <description>Transporting tobacco without a valid transport permit or sale note was treated as a clear contravention of the transport rule, and confiscation was sustained. The authorities accepted the explanation for delayed production of the sale note but found, on the material before them, that the seized goods differed in variety and quantity from those described in the note; those concurrent factual findings were supported by the record. The revisional authority adopted those findings and merely reduced the fine and penalty, so the absence of a detailed revisional order did not justify interference and no breach of natural justice was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45685</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>