<?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>2010 (2) TMI 1026 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153797</link>
    <description>A precedent on redemption fine for provisionally released goods was held inapplicable where the goods had been clandestinely removed and were not available for confiscation. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had already considered the issue with reference to relevant judicial decisions and saw no reason to interfere. As a result, the redemption fine was not disturbed and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed, leaving the order in favour of the assessee intact.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jul 2013 18:14:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170832" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 1026 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153797</link>
      <description>A precedent on redemption fine for provisionally released goods was held inapplicable where the goods had been clandestinely removed and were not available for confiscation. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had already considered the issue with reference to relevant judicial decisions and saw no reason to interfere. As a result, the redemption fine was not disturbed and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed, leaving the order in favour of the assessee intact.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153797</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>