<?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 (4) TMI 530 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98511</link>
    <description>Where an earlier order reducing redemption fine and penalty did not prescribe any compliance period, no application for extension of time was required. The penalty had already been paid and the redemption fine was later accepted by the department, so no question arose of seeking further time. The departmental authorities could not insist on a fresh approach to the Tribunal after accepting payment and were directed to comply with the earlier order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:19:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135568" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (4) TMI 530 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98511</link>
      <description>Where an earlier order reducing redemption fine and penalty did not prescribe any compliance period, no application for extension of time was required. The penalty had already been paid and the redemption fine was later accepted by the department, so no question arose of seeking further time. The departmental authorities could not insist on a fresh approach to the Tribunal after accepting payment and were directed to comply with the earlier order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98511</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>