<?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 (3) TMI 417 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94571</link>
    <description>The appeal against Shri Ajay Kumar Jain was rejected as the proceedings against him were dropped. The reduction of penalty on Shri Hargobind Singh was deemed unsustainable, and the part of the order passed on de novo consideration of his case was set aside. The appeals against Shri Kuldeep Singh, Shri Balwinder Singh, and Shri Gursharan Singh Sodhi for a reduction in penalties were rejected, upholding the impugned order for these respondents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 11:12:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131630" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 417 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94571</link>
      <description>The appeal against Shri Ajay Kumar Jain was rejected as the proceedings against him were dropped. The reduction of penalty on Shri Hargobind Singh was deemed unsustainable, and the part of the order passed on de novo consideration of his case was set aside. The appeals against Shri Kuldeep Singh, Shri Balwinder Singh, and Shri Gursharan Singh Sodhi for a reduction in penalties were rejected, upholding the impugned order for these respondents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94571</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>