<?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>2011 (2) TMI 1076 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209215</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act on the appellant for involvement in misdeclaration but found the Rs.25 lakhs penalty excessive compared to a similar case, reducing it to Rs.2,00,000. Despite the appellant&#039;s contentions of being a mere local buyer, the Commissioner&#039;s findings of direct involvement were decisive. The appeal was dismissed with the modified penalty amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=182667" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (2) TMI 1076 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209215</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act on the appellant for involvement in misdeclaration but found the Rs.25 lakhs penalty excessive compared to a similar case, reducing it to Rs.2,00,000. Despite the appellant&#039;s contentions of being a mere local buyer, the Commissioner&#039;s findings of direct involvement were decisive. The appeal was dismissed with the modified penalty amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209215</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>