<?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 (12) TMI 812 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154781</link>
    <description>The appeals filed by M/s. American Power Conversion Ltd. were allowed as the impugned order was set aside. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original authority&#039;s decision on exemption eligibility under specific notifications, finding the goods akin to prototype/technical samples. The demand of duty under Section 72(a) was deemed unsustainable due to lack of evidence of physical removal from the warehouse. The liability for confiscation under Section 111(o) and the penalty under Section 112(a) were also found not sustainable, as conditions for liability were not fulfilled, and there was no evidence of dishonest conduct.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2013 14:15:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171812" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 812 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154781</link>
      <description>The appeals filed by M/s. American Power Conversion Ltd. were allowed as the impugned order was set aside. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original authority&#039;s decision on exemption eligibility under specific notifications, finding the goods akin to prototype/technical samples. The demand of duty under Section 72(a) was deemed unsustainable due to lack of evidence of physical removal from the warehouse. The liability for confiscation under Section 111(o) and the penalty under Section 112(a) were also found not sustainable, as conditions for liability were not fulfilled, and there was no evidence of dishonest conduct.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154781</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>