<?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 (12) TMI 303 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120544</link>
    <description>Penalty was found unsustainable where a vehicle imported under an EPCG licence was cleared at Mumbai Airport, the very port specified in the licence. The restriction in the import notification concerning new vehicles through designated ports did not justify penal action on these facts, because the importer acted in accordance with the authorised port of clearance. The appeal seeking penalty was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Jul 2012 11:24:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157539" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (12) TMI 303 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120544</link>
      <description>Penalty was found unsustainable where a vehicle imported under an EPCG licence was cleared at Mumbai Airport, the very port specified in the licence. The restriction in the import notification concerning new vehicles through designated ports did not justify penal action on these facts, because the importer acted in accordance with the authorised port of clearance. The appeal seeking penalty was therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120544</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>