<?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 (12) TMI 461 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124693</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal upheld the imposition of a penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant for contravening the DEEC scheme conditions. Despite the appellant&#039;s argument about the specificity of the notice, the tribunal found the appellant adequately informed of the charge and liable for penal action. However, considering the overall circumstances, the tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 1,00,000, partially allowing the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 13:03:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161637" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (12) TMI 461 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124693</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal upheld the imposition of a penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant for contravening the DEEC scheme conditions. Despite the appellant&#039;s argument about the specificity of the notice, the tribunal found the appellant adequately informed of the charge and liable for penal action. However, considering the overall circumstances, the tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 1,00,000, partially allowing the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124693</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>