<?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 (12) TMI 85 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201768</link>
    <description>The Tribunal modified the Commissioner&#039;s order by setting aside the fine due to the absence of goods for physical confiscation, upholding the penalty but reducing its quantum, and objecting to the denial of DFIA benefits as beyond jurisdiction. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2013 11:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175362" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 85 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201768</link>
      <description>The Tribunal modified the Commissioner&#039;s order by setting aside the fine due to the absence of goods for physical confiscation, upholding the penalty but reducing its quantum, and objecting to the denial of DFIA benefits as beyond jurisdiction. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201768</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>