<?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 (7) TMI 748 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124400</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that goods cannot be confiscated, and a redemption fine cannot be imposed when they are not available for confiscation, except in cases where goods were initially seized but later released under bond. The Tribunal found that previous decisions relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) did not address actual confiscation and redemption fine imposition. The conflicting views led the Tribunal to refer the matter to a Larger Bench for a conclusive decision on the issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2012 17:46:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161348" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 748 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124400</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that goods cannot be confiscated, and a redemption fine cannot be imposed when they are not available for confiscation, except in cases where goods were initially seized but later released under bond. The Tribunal found that previous decisions relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) did not address actual confiscation and redemption fine imposition. The conflicting views led the Tribunal to refer the matter to a Larger Bench for a conclusive decision on the issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124400</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>