<?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>2001 (3) TMI 356 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95968</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposition while confirming the duty payment. The case involved a dispute over whether the cost of printing on lay flat tubings should be included in the assessable value for duty calculation. The Tribunal emphasized compliance with statutory requirements and distinguished between duty payment obligations and penalty imposition, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants on the penalty issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:10:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133027" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (3) TMI 356 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95968</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposition while confirming the duty payment. The case involved a dispute over whether the cost of printing on lay flat tubings should be included in the assessable value for duty calculation. The Tribunal emphasized compliance with statutory requirements and distinguished between duty payment obligations and penalty imposition, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants on the penalty issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95968</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>