<?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>2009 (2) TMI 591 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125877</link>
    <description>Waiver of pre-deposit for penalty was granted in an alleged abetment case involving overvaluation of export goods and wrongful DEPB claims because the valuation certificate alone did not establish abetment of export of goods liable to confiscation. The Tribunal noted that some consignments had already been exported at the same value before the certificate, the show cause notice itself stated that the customs officer did not act on the certificate, and no statutory provision made a Chartered Accountant&#039;s certificate mandatory for DEPB exports. It also found the penalty case under Section 114 weak, with the adjudication order appearing to contain a typographical error in citing Section 112.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:20:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162783" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 591 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125877</link>
      <description>Waiver of pre-deposit for penalty was granted in an alleged abetment case involving overvaluation of export goods and wrongful DEPB claims because the valuation certificate alone did not establish abetment of export of goods liable to confiscation. The Tribunal noted that some consignments had already been exported at the same value before the certificate, the show cause notice itself stated that the customs officer did not act on the certificate, and no statutory provision made a Chartered Accountant&#039;s certificate mandatory for DEPB exports. It also found the penalty case under Section 114 weak, with the adjudication order appearing to contain a typographical error in citing Section 112.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125877</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>