<?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 (6) TMI 597 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100145</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed in part, with the tribunal addressing issues concerning duty liability, shortage determination, penalty imposition on cleared goods, and director&#039;s liability for penalties. The judgment emphasized the significance of maintaining accurate records, adhering to regulations, and providing evidence to support claims in customs-related cases. The company was held liable to pay duty and penalty, with the director also being found responsible for overseeing operations and policies, justifying his liability for penalties. The penalty imposed on the company was reduced due to lack of concrete evidence supporting certain allegations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:17:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137196" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 597 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100145</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed in part, with the tribunal addressing issues concerning duty liability, shortage determination, penalty imposition on cleared goods, and director&#039;s liability for penalties. The judgment emphasized the significance of maintaining accurate records, adhering to regulations, and providing evidence to support claims in customs-related cases. The company was held liable to pay duty and penalty, with the director also being found responsible for overseeing operations and policies, justifying his liability for penalties. The penalty imposed on the company was reduced due to lack of concrete evidence supporting certain allegations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100145</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>