<?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 (12) TMI 500 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114904</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the valuation enhancement of imported photocopying machines, confiscation of goods, and imposition of a penalty. The Tribunal emphasized the need for expert assessment on factors like Country of Origin, Model, Make, and the present condition of goods for valuation. It concluded that the confiscation of goods without a specific license was unjustified, as imports of similar goods were allowed without a license in previous decisions. The penalty imposed was also set aside, providing consequential relief to the appellant. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 11:29:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151903" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 500 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114904</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the valuation enhancement of imported photocopying machines, confiscation of goods, and imposition of a penalty. The Tribunal emphasized the need for expert assessment on factors like Country of Origin, Model, Make, and the present condition of goods for valuation. It concluded that the confiscation of goods without a specific license was unjustified, as imports of similar goods were allowed without a license in previous decisions. The penalty imposed was also set aside, providing consequential relief to the appellant. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114904</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>