<?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 (7) TMI 873 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155767</link>
    <description>The court set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order, allowing the appeals of the importer and CHA. It found no evidence of deliberate evasion, ruled Section 111(o) as inapplicable, and noted the absence of misdeclaration. The importer was absolved from penalty, and the penalty on the CHA was overturned due to lack of justification and evidence against them.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Sep 2013 15:54:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172794" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 873 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155767</link>
      <description>The court set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order, allowing the appeals of the importer and CHA. It found no evidence of deliberate evasion, ruled Section 111(o) as inapplicable, and noted the absence of misdeclaration. The importer was absolved from penalty, and the penalty on the CHA was overturned due to lack of justification and evidence against them.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155767</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>