<?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 (11) TMI 488 - CESTAT,  CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120690</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI considered applications seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for penalties imposed under the Customs Act. Penalties were imposed on entities including M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd., Rakesh Yadav, and C. Nanda Kumar. The case centered on eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 84/97-Cus. for machinery imported for an &#039;Industrial Pollution Prevention Project.&#039; The appellants were penalized for abetting forgery due to inadequate certification. The Tribunal emphasized the role of the project implementing authority in certification, highlighting the need for proper documentation. Despite financial hardships raised, reduced pre-deposit amounts were decided for the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:18:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157685" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 488 - CESTAT,  CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120690</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI considered applications seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for penalties imposed under the Customs Act. Penalties were imposed on entities including M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd., Rakesh Yadav, and C. Nanda Kumar. The case centered on eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 84/97-Cus. for machinery imported for an &#039;Industrial Pollution Prevention Project.&#039; The appellants were penalized for abetting forgery due to inadequate certification. The Tribunal emphasized the role of the project implementing authority in certification, highlighting the need for proper documentation. Despite financial hardships raised, reduced pre-deposit amounts were decided for the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120690</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>