<?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 (10) TMI 159 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47937</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the decision of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act. The case involved an employee of Haryana Police in clandestine metal import activities. Despite the Tribunal not extensively discussing the appellant&#039;s case, the High Court found no prejudice. The appellant&#039;s involvement in clearing, transporting, concealing, and storing illegal goods was established through witness statements and investigations. The Court rejected challenges to the show cause notice and penalty, affirming the penalty under Section 112(b) for customs duty evasion. The appeal was dismissed as no significant legal question was raised.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:55:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86453" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (10) TMI 159 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47937</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the decision of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act. The case involved an employee of Haryana Police in clandestine metal import activities. Despite the Tribunal not extensively discussing the appellant&#039;s case, the High Court found no prejudice. The appellant&#039;s involvement in clearing, transporting, concealing, and storing illegal goods was established through witness statements and investigations. The Court rejected challenges to the show cause notice and penalty, affirming the penalty under Section 112(b) for customs duty evasion. The appeal was dismissed as no significant legal question was raised.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47937</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>