<?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>2009 (6) TMI 141 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75025</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating no misdeclaration of description was established under the EPCG scheme. The order of confiscation based on misdeclaration of value was upheld only for two items, with a reduced redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh and penalty of Rs. 25,000. The Tribunal modified the Commissioner&#039;s order, allowing redemption for the two items with enhanced values and sustained the confiscation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113302" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 141 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75025</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating no misdeclaration of description was established under the EPCG scheme. The order of confiscation based on misdeclaration of value was upheld only for two items, with a reduced redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh and penalty of Rs. 25,000. The Tribunal modified the Commissioner&#039;s order, allowing redemption for the two items with enhanced values and sustained the confiscation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75025</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>