<?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 (5) TMI 472 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116276</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the confiscation of the Mercedes car under Sections 115(2) and 121 of the Customs Act, determining it was not used in smuggling activities. The confiscation of Indian currency was upheld as unchallenged, with penalties justified. One appellant faced penalties, while the other was exempt due to the car&#039;s release. The decision hinged on legal provisions and lack of evidence for the car&#039;s confiscation, emphasizing compliance with Customs Act criteria.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:32:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153274" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (5) TMI 472 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116276</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the confiscation of the Mercedes car under Sections 115(2) and 121 of the Customs Act, determining it was not used in smuggling activities. The confiscation of Indian currency was upheld as unchallenged, with penalties justified. One appellant faced penalties, while the other was exempt due to the car&#039;s release. The decision hinged on legal provisions and lack of evidence for the car&#039;s confiscation, emphasizing compliance with Customs Act criteria.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116276</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>