<?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 (6) TMI 350 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119723</link>
    <description>M/s. Oswal Paper &amp;amp; Allied Indus. imported a Second Hand Paper Machine under the EPCG Scheme but failed to meet export obligations, resulting in Customs confiscation and penalties. The Tribunal ruled that penalties were not justified as the exemption notification outlined only duties and interest for such failures, not penalties. As the import was under a Govt. Scheme and not improperly imported, confiscation under Section 111 was deemed inapplicable. The Tribunal held that the notification provided a comprehensive framework, leading to the setting aside of confiscation and penalties, favoring the appellants due to business failure rather than deliberate misconduct.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:24:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156719" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (6) TMI 350 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119723</link>
      <description>M/s. Oswal Paper &amp;amp; Allied Indus. imported a Second Hand Paper Machine under the EPCG Scheme but failed to meet export obligations, resulting in Customs confiscation and penalties. The Tribunal ruled that penalties were not justified as the exemption notification outlined only duties and interest for such failures, not penalties. As the import was under a Govt. Scheme and not improperly imported, confiscation under Section 111 was deemed inapplicable. The Tribunal held that the notification provided a comprehensive framework, leading to the setting aside of confiscation and penalties, favoring the appellants due to business failure rather than deliberate misconduct.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119723</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>