<?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>2008 (1) TMI 407 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48316</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to allow the accused&#039;s appeal, emphasizing the lack of evidence connecting the accused to smuggling activities and the consistency of charges between departmental and criminal proceedings. The Court dismissed the appeal by the Commissioner of Customs, stating no substantial question of law arose and affirming the Tribunal&#039;s ruling in favor of the accused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Dec 2014 16:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86819" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 407 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48316</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to allow the accused&#039;s appeal, emphasizing the lack of evidence connecting the accused to smuggling activities and the consistency of charges between departmental and criminal proceedings. The Court dismissed the appeal by the Commissioner of Customs, stating no substantial question of law arose and affirming the Tribunal&#039;s ruling in favor of the accused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48316</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>