<?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 (10) TMI 980 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105396</link>
    <description>The Tribunal overturned the Commissioner&#039;s order confiscating imported machinery for jewelry manufacturing, citing insufficient evidence of under-valuation and lack of clarity on the role of indenting agents. Importers were deemed eligible for the benefit of a notification regarding concessional duty rates, with the Tribunal finding no sustained demand for machines imported before changes in eligibility criteria. Importers&#039; compliance with export requirements was supported by evidence, leading to the waiver of penalties and confirmed duties. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicants based on the presented arguments and prima facie assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:21:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142434" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (10) TMI 980 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105396</link>
      <description>The Tribunal overturned the Commissioner&#039;s order confiscating imported machinery for jewelry manufacturing, citing insufficient evidence of under-valuation and lack of clarity on the role of indenting agents. Importers were deemed eligible for the benefit of a notification regarding concessional duty rates, with the Tribunal finding no sustained demand for machines imported before changes in eligibility criteria. Importers&#039; compliance with export requirements was supported by evidence, leading to the waiver of penalties and confirmed duties. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicants based on the presented arguments and prima facie assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105396</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>