<?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 (9) TMI 391 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48467</link>
    <description>Forged DEPB transfer release advices confer no right to customs exemption, and duty remains chargeable once the documents are shown to be forged. The Court applied the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act and treated the importer&#039;s nondisclosure after being confronted with the forgery as wilful suppression, so the extended limitation period applied and the demand was not time-barred. Because the exemption claim failed, consequential interest followed, and penalty was not interfered with in the absence of any finding of bona fides in favour of the importer. No substantial question of law arose on the remand of penalty or the challenge to the relied-upon statement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Nov 2014 12:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86962" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 391 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48467</link>
      <description>Forged DEPB transfer release advices confer no right to customs exemption, and duty remains chargeable once the documents are shown to be forged. The Court applied the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act and treated the importer&#039;s nondisclosure after being confronted with the forgery as wilful suppression, so the extended limitation period applied and the demand was not time-barred. Because the exemption claim failed, consequential interest followed, and penalty was not interfered with in the absence of any finding of bona fides in favour of the importer. No substantial question of law arose on the remand of penalty or the challenge to the relied-upon statement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48467</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>