<?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 (4) TMI 401 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119582</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority&#039;s decision, confirming the demand for customs duty, confiscation of goods, and imposition of a penalty on the appellants for non-compliance with the conditions of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. The appellants&#039; failure to fulfill post-importation requirements led to the confiscation of medical equipment and the penalty under the Customs Act sections. The tribunal deemed the demand for customs duty valid despite the rescinding of the notification, emphasizing the continuing obligation to adhere to notification conditions. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower authority&#039;s ruling.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:52:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156579" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (4) TMI 401 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119582</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority&#039;s decision, confirming the demand for customs duty, confiscation of goods, and imposition of a penalty on the appellants for non-compliance with the conditions of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. The appellants&#039; failure to fulfill post-importation requirements led to the confiscation of medical equipment and the penalty under the Customs Act sections. The tribunal deemed the demand for customs duty valid despite the rescinding of the notification, emphasizing the continuing obligation to adhere to notification conditions. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower authority&#039;s ruling.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119582</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>