<?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 (2) TMI 298 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75147</link>
    <description>Pending writ appeal did not require adjudication to be kept in abeyance where the High Court&#039;s single-judge order had not been stayed, so the adjudicating authority could proceed and its speaking order was not liable to remand. Misdeclaration of exported jewellery was not proved because the exports had been examined by customs, supported by recognised jewellers&#039; certification, and the Revenue&#039;s Dubai documents were unauthenticated photocopies; once misdeclaration failed, confiscation, duty demand, interest and penalty could not survive. The tribunal upheld the adjudication order and found no sustainable demand or penalty on the facts proved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113419" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 298 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75147</link>
      <description>Pending writ appeal did not require adjudication to be kept in abeyance where the High Court&#039;s single-judge order had not been stayed, so the adjudicating authority could proceed and its speaking order was not liable to remand. Misdeclaration of exported jewellery was not proved because the exports had been examined by customs, supported by recognised jewellers&#039; certification, and the Revenue&#039;s Dubai documents were unauthenticated photocopies; once misdeclaration failed, confiscation, duty demand, interest and penalty could not survive. The tribunal upheld the adjudication order and found no sustainable demand or penalty on the facts proved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75147</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>