<?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 (8) TMI 670 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124639</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals and set aside the orders-in-original, holding that redemption could be offered for prohibited goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act. The decision was based on established legal precedent emphasizing that absolute confiscation should be an exception rather than the rule, aligning with evolving legal objectives.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2017 11:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161583" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 670 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124639</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals and set aside the orders-in-original, holding that redemption could be offered for prohibited goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act. The decision was based on established legal precedent emphasizing that absolute confiscation should be an exception rather than the rule, aligning with evolving legal objectives.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124639</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>