<?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>2004 (2) TMI 637 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS &amp; CENTRAL EXCISE, C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114273</link>
    <description>The Settlement Commission confirmed a duplication of demand for customs duty to the extent of Rs. 6,05,949. The applicant&#039;s claim for duty drawback was not allowed but left open for pursuit in the appropriate forum. Immunity from interest, penalty, prosecution, and fine was granted to the applicant and the Executive Director in lieu of confiscation under the Customs Act. The main applicant&#039;s duty liability was settled at Rs. 59,65,059, with granted immunities subject to withdrawal for any withholding of material particulars or false evidence. The co-applicant was granted immunity from penalty and prosecution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 13:15:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151272" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 637 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS &amp; CENTRAL EXCISE, C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114273</link>
      <description>The Settlement Commission confirmed a duplication of demand for customs duty to the extent of Rs. 6,05,949. The applicant&#039;s claim for duty drawback was not allowed but left open for pursuit in the appropriate forum. Immunity from interest, penalty, prosecution, and fine was granted to the applicant and the Executive Director in lieu of confiscation under the Customs Act. The main applicant&#039;s duty liability was settled at Rs. 59,65,059, with granted immunities subject to withdrawal for any withholding of material particulars or false evidence. The co-applicant was granted immunity from penalty and prosecution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114273</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>