<?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>2003 (12) TMI 461 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111089</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order confiscating the entire consignment under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, ruling that only the excess quantity should have been liable for confiscation. The redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 1.25 lakhs, and the penalty under Section 112(a) was decreased to Rs. 1 lakh. The Tribunal&#039;s modifications corrected the errors in the original order, ensuring proportionate penalties and fines for the violations committed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:43:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148105" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 461 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111089</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order confiscating the entire consignment under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, ruling that only the excess quantity should have been liable for confiscation. The redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 1.25 lakhs, and the penalty under Section 112(a) was decreased to Rs. 1 lakh. The Tribunal&#039;s modifications corrected the errors in the original order, ensuring proportionate penalties and fines for the violations committed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111089</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>