<?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 (10) TMI 481 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95748</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Chennai allowed the appeal by M/s. Dhevi Super Leathers, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal ruled that the penalty under Section 114A did not apply as duty liability was determined on another entity, M/s. Bangalore Sales Corporation. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner&#039;s interpretation that Section 114A precludes penalties under Section 112, emphasizing that the Commissioner&#039;s finding was incorrect. The Tribunal also noted the submission of &#039;no Modvat availed&#039; certificates but refrained from making findings on this evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:45:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132807" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (10) TMI 481 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95748</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Chennai allowed the appeal by M/s. Dhevi Super Leathers, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal ruled that the penalty under Section 114A did not apply as duty liability was determined on another entity, M/s. Bangalore Sales Corporation. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner&#039;s interpretation that Section 114A precludes penalties under Section 112, emphasizing that the Commissioner&#039;s finding was incorrect. The Tribunal also noted the submission of &#039;no Modvat availed&#039; certificates but refrained from making findings on this evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95748</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>