<?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; PENALTY</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/tag/penalty/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>CLAUSE (O) OF SECTION 111 OF CUSTOMS ACT, 1962</title>
		<link>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/03/07/clause-o-of-section-111-of-customs-act-1962/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=clause-o-of-section-111-of-customs-act-1962</link>
		<comments>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/03/07/clause-o-of-section-111-of-customs-act-1962/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Mar 2010 10:56:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confiscation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CUSTOMS ACT 1962]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PENALTY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEC 111(O)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/03/07/clause-o-of-section-111-of-customs-act-1962/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, while deciding on 24.9.09 the Customs Application No.9 of 2001 in re: COMMR. OF CUS. [PREVENTIVE] vs LEELA SCOTTISH LACE PVT. LTD, it was held as follows:- QUOTE: It would be clear that what the Supreme Court has held that Clause (o) of Section 111 of the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/03/07/clause-o-of-section-111-of-customs-act-1962/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>PENALTY UNDER SEC 11AC OF C.EX. ACT</title>
		<link>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/12/23/penalty-under-sec-11ac-of-c-ex-act/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=penalty-under-sec-11ac-of-c-ex-act</link>
		<comments>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/12/23/penalty-under-sec-11ac-of-c-ex-act/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:54:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CESTAT ORDERS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[INTENT TO EVADE DUTY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PENALTY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SECTION 11AC OF C.EX. ACT]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/12/23/penalty-under-sec-11ac-of-c-ex-act/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CESTAT KOLKATA BENCH, while passing the final order no.A718 on 04.12.09 in re: IOCL HALDIA REFY vs CCEX HALDIA observed as follows: - QUOTE: The Honble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs RAJASTHAN SPINNING &#38; WEAVING MILLS [2009-238-ELT-3 (SC) held that the application of Section 11AC would depend upon the existence or otherwise [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/12/23/penalty-under-sec-11ac-of-c-ex-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

