<?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 (7) TMI 608 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97570</link>
    <description>The Tribunal confirmed the Commissioner&#039;s order regarding the mutilation/melting of imported goods, upholding the duty implications. The appeal challenging the correctness of the Commissioner&#039;s orders was rejected, with the Tribunal finding no fault in allowing the enhancement of goods&#039; value, demanding differential duty, and not imposing fines or penalties. The decision was supported by compliance with duty concessions for heavy melting scrap and end-use verification, as per the Board&#039;s instructions. The timing of the request for mutilation, made promptly upon receiving a show cause notice, was deemed acceptable, leading to the rejection of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:41:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134627" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 608 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97570</link>
      <description>The Tribunal confirmed the Commissioner&#039;s order regarding the mutilation/melting of imported goods, upholding the duty implications. The appeal challenging the correctness of the Commissioner&#039;s orders was rejected, with the Tribunal finding no fault in allowing the enhancement of goods&#039; value, demanding differential duty, and not imposing fines or penalties. The decision was supported by compliance with duty concessions for heavy melting scrap and end-use verification, as per the Board&#039;s instructions. The timing of the request for mutilation, made promptly upon receiving a show cause notice, was deemed acceptable, leading to the rejection of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97570</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>