<?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>2005 (1) TMI 571 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116116</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Adjudication Order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam, regarding the jurisdiction over transhipment of ship stores. It was determined that the Commissioner had jurisdiction under Section 55 of the Customs Act, and the proceedings were dropped based on this jurisdiction. The Tribunal agreed that transhipment provisions do not apply to ship stores, emphasizing that duty should have been paid at the port of importation. Due to the intact nature of the transhipped goods and errors in Customs procedures, no penalty was imposed on the Respondents, and the Adjudication Order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Jun 2012 14:17:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153114" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 571 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116116</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Adjudication Order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam, regarding the jurisdiction over transhipment of ship stores. It was determined that the Commissioner had jurisdiction under Section 55 of the Customs Act, and the proceedings were dropped based on this jurisdiction. The Tribunal agreed that transhipment provisions do not apply to ship stores, emphasizing that duty should have been paid at the port of importation. Due to the intact nature of the transhipped goods and errors in Customs procedures, no penalty was imposed on the Respondents, and the Adjudication Order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116116</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>