<?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>2000 (2) TMI 409 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94300</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act was confined to the person liable to pay duty under Section 28(2), as the provision was read on its plain language. In the context of denial of exemption under Notification No. 203/92-Cus., the licence holder was held outside that class because it was not the duty-liable person. Accordingly, the penalty could not be imposed on the import licence holder and was liable to be set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:43:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131360" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 409 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94300</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act was confined to the person liable to pay duty under Section 28(2), as the provision was read on its plain language. In the context of denial of exemption under Notification No. 203/92-Cus., the licence holder was held outside that class because it was not the duty-liable person. Accordingly, the penalty could not be imposed on the import licence holder and was liable to be set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94300</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>