<?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 (7) TMI 544 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123609</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI dismissed the appeal of the Revenue concerning the dropping of penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that Section 114A was not applicable to the respondents as the cause of action for the penalty arose on the date of import, which was before the provision came into force. Despite the department&#039;s argument based on subsequent proceedings, the Tribunal emphasized that the penalty under Section 114A is linked to the demand of duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, and since the import occurred before the provision&#039;s enactment, the respondents were not liable for penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:40:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160573" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (7) TMI 544 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123609</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI dismissed the appeal of the Revenue concerning the dropping of penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that Section 114A was not applicable to the respondents as the cause of action for the penalty arose on the date of import, which was before the provision came into force. Despite the department&#039;s argument based on subsequent proceedings, the Tribunal emphasized that the penalty under Section 114A is linked to the demand of duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, and since the import occurred before the provision&#039;s enactment, the respondents were not liable for penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123609</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>