<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>taxesinindia &#187; Customs Act</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/tag/customs-act/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:33:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>NOT TO GO ONLY BY DICTIONARY MEANING</title>
		<link>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/02/14/not-to-go-only-by-dictionary-meaning/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=not-to-go-only-by-dictionary-meaning</link>
		<comments>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/02/14/not-to-go-only-by-dictionary-meaning/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:09:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Customs Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DICTIONARY MEANING]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Excise Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[INCOME TAX ACT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PRIMA FACIE]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/02/14/not-to-go-only-by-dictionary-meaning/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA while deciding the Civil Appeal No. 786 of 2010 with C.A. Nos. 787-792 of 2010, on 20.01.10, in re: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs EMPTEE POLY-YARN PVT. LTD, observed as follows: - QUOTE: Repeatedly this Court has recommended to the Deaprtment, be it under Excise Act, Customs Act or the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/02/14/not-to-go-only-by-dictionary-meaning/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>APPEAL AGAINST ORDER OF DY. COLLECTOR</title>
		<link>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/12/04/appeal-against-order-of-dy-collector/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=appeal-against-order-of-dy-collector</link>
		<comments>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/12/04/appeal-against-order-of-dy-collector/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 04:57:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[APPEAL TO APPELLATE TRIBUNAL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Customs Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[JURISDICTION]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/12/04/appeal-against-order-of-dy-collector/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, while deciding the Writ petition no. 2686 of 1993, on 18.8.09, in re: RAMESH SAKALCHAND JAIN vs UNION OF INDIA, it was held as follows:- QUOTE: The question before us for consideration is whether the Tribunal was right in arriving at a conclusion it has arrived at [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/12/04/appeal-against-order-of-dy-collector/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE</title>
		<link>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/05/29/interpretation-of-statute/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=interpretation-of-statute</link>
		<comments>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/05/29/interpretation-of-statute/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2009 10:19:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[1962]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Customs Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Finance Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General Clauses Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[in pari materia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Notifications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Orders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rules]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/05/29/interpretation-of-statute/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The High Court of Judicature at Madras while deciding the W.P. Nos. 707-716, 336-350, 779-780, 884, 1772-1788 and 2085-2087 of 2009, on 15/04/2009, in re : ISAK EBINESAR vs CHAIRMAN, CBEC, N. DELHI observed as follows : - QUOTE: One need not take recourse to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, for solving the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/05/29/interpretation-of-statute/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

