<?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>2006 (5) TMI 96 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47776</link>
    <description>Prosecution under the Customs Act for alleged export of antiquities was treated as unsustainable because the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 supplies a special statutory machinery for such contraventions. The Delhi HC applied the principle that a special enactment excludes prosecution under the general fiscal statute to that extent, while leaving confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act available where otherwise applicable. On that basis, the discharge order was upheld and the revision petitions failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:41:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86294" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 96 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47776</link>
      <description>Prosecution under the Customs Act for alleged export of antiquities was treated as unsustainable because the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 supplies a special statutory machinery for such contraventions. The Delhi HC applied the principle that a special enactment excludes prosecution under the general fiscal statute to that extent, while leaving confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act available where otherwise applicable. On that basis, the discharge order was upheld and the revision petitions failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47776</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>