<?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>2012 (8) TMI 29 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215344</link>
    <description>Duty-free imported goods supplied by a 100% EOU trading unit to another EOU or against valid advance licence entitlements were treated as falling within the governing bond and the applicable CBEC circular. On that basis, no customs duty liability arose on the company, and the prerequisite contravention for fastening personal liability on the directors was absent. Penalty under Sections 112 and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 was therefore not sustainable on the stated facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=188731" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 29 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215344</link>
      <description>Duty-free imported goods supplied by a 100% EOU trading unit to another EOU or against valid advance licence entitlements were treated as falling within the governing bond and the applicable CBEC circular. On that basis, no customs duty liability arose on the company, and the prerequisite contravention for fastening personal liability on the directors was absent. Penalty under Sections 112 and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 was therefore not sustainable on the stated facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215344</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>