<?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 (5) TMI 436 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122034</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the appellant, as a bona fide purchaser, should not be held liable for the additional duty and redemption fine imposed by the Customs department for an imported car. Citing legal precedents and statutory provisions, the Tribunal found that the duty should be demanded from the original importer, not the buyer, especially when the purchaser acted in good faith. The order of confiscation and fine was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2012 11:14:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159025" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 436 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122034</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the appellant, as a bona fide purchaser, should not be held liable for the additional duty and redemption fine imposed by the Customs department for an imported car. Citing legal precedents and statutory provisions, the Tribunal found that the duty should be demanded from the original importer, not the buyer, especially when the purchaser acted in good faith. The order of confiscation and fine was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122034</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>