<?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>2006 (8) TMI 345 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118471</link>
    <description>The Hon&#039;ble CESTAT upheld the Department&#039;s valuation under Rule 8, rejecting the transaction value and confirmed the liability to confiscation under Section 111(d) due to the import of restricted second-hand capital goods. The fine was reduced to Rs. 10 lakhs, and the penalty under Section 112 was reduced to Rs. 1 lakh. The appeal was partially allowed in favor of the importer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2012 18:13:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155468" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (8) TMI 345 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118471</link>
      <description>The Hon&#039;ble CESTAT upheld the Department&#039;s valuation under Rule 8, rejecting the transaction value and confirmed the liability to confiscation under Section 111(d) due to the import of restricted second-hand capital goods. The fine was reduced to Rs. 10 lakhs, and the penalty under Section 112 was reduced to Rs. 1 lakh. The appeal was partially allowed in favor of the importer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118471</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>