<?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>2007 (4) TMI 567 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122573</link>
    <description>The settlement application filed by M/s. Gurukrupa Metal Recycling and co-applicants regarding a Show Cause Notice issued by ADG, DRI, Ahmedabad was resolved favorably. The main applicant deposited the admitted duty liability after a delay due to financial hardship. Despite denying clandestine removal, they paid the duty due to their factory closure. The Revenue confirmed full duty payment but disputed immunity from interest. The Bench found insufficient evidence linking seized cash to impugned goods, settling the case under Section 127C(7) with terms including duty payment, immunity from interest, releasing seized currency, and dropping the proposal for confiscation of goods. Immunities were granted subject to compliance, with withdrawal conditions specified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 16:48:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159558" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 567 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122573</link>
      <description>The settlement application filed by M/s. Gurukrupa Metal Recycling and co-applicants regarding a Show Cause Notice issued by ADG, DRI, Ahmedabad was resolved favorably. The main applicant deposited the admitted duty liability after a delay due to financial hardship. Despite denying clandestine removal, they paid the duty due to their factory closure. The Revenue confirmed full duty payment but disputed immunity from interest. The Bench found insufficient evidence linking seized cash to impugned goods, settling the case under Section 127C(7) with terms including duty payment, immunity from interest, releasing seized currency, and dropping the proposal for confiscation of goods. Immunities were granted subject to compliance, with withdrawal conditions specified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122573</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>