<?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 (8) TMI 885 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127980</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority&#039;s decision, confirming that the appellants over-invoiced export consignments to claim ineligible duty drawback. The Present Market Value (PMV) determined by the department was accepted, and the retraction of statements was deemed invalid. The realization of export proceeds did not impact the findings of over-invoicing. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the penalties and denial of drawback claims. The Tribunal&#039;s majority decision sustained the impugned order, with Member (Judicial) dissenting but ultimately overruled by the agreement between Member (Technical) and the third Member (Judicial).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164852" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 885 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127980</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority&#039;s decision, confirming that the appellants over-invoiced export consignments to claim ineligible duty drawback. The Present Market Value (PMV) determined by the department was accepted, and the retraction of statements was deemed invalid. The realization of export proceeds did not impact the findings of over-invoicing. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the penalties and denial of drawback claims. The Tribunal&#039;s majority decision sustained the impugned order, with Member (Judicial) dissenting but ultimately overruled by the agreement between Member (Technical) and the third Member (Judicial).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127980</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>