<?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 (12) TMI 481 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118977</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals, emphasizing the right to mutilation under Section 24 rules and the appellants&#039; proactive approach in seeking compliance. The judgment highlighted the importance of timing in offering mutilation and the absence of restrictions on traders for such requests. By permitting mutilation and setting aside penalties, the Tribunal ensured fair treatment and compliance with relevant provisions of the Customs Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Jul 2012 12:06:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155974" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 481 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118977</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals, emphasizing the right to mutilation under Section 24 rules and the appellants&#039; proactive approach in seeking compliance. The judgment highlighted the importance of timing in offering mutilation and the absence of restrictions on traders for such requests. By permitting mutilation and setting aside penalties, the Tribunal ensured fair treatment and compliance with relevant provisions of the Customs Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118977</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>