<?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>2008 (6) TMI 446 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123985</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai allowed appeal No. C/164/08 entirely and partially allowed appeal No. C/165/08 by reducing the penalty imposed on the director of an appellant-company, a money changer, for issuing blank travellers cheques in contravention of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that customs authorities had jurisdiction to issue show cause notices and adjudicate against the appellants, resulting in penalties under the Act. The director&#039;s admission to violating RBI guidelines led to the reduced penalty on him, emphasizing individual responsibility in regulatory compliance. The penalty on the appellant-company was set aside, emphasizing the importance of adherence to regulatory guidelines.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:23:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160943" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (6) TMI 446 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123985</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai allowed appeal No. C/164/08 entirely and partially allowed appeal No. C/165/08 by reducing the penalty imposed on the director of an appellant-company, a money changer, for issuing blank travellers cheques in contravention of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that customs authorities had jurisdiction to issue show cause notices and adjudicate against the appellants, resulting in penalties under the Act. The director&#039;s admission to violating RBI guidelines led to the reduced penalty on him, emphasizing individual responsibility in regulatory compliance. The penalty on the appellant-company was set aside, emphasizing the importance of adherence to regulatory guidelines.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123985</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>