<?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>2013 (4) TMI 624 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233360</link>
    <description>MRP-based additional customs duty applies only where packaged goods are intended for retail sale and the packaged commodities rules require a declared retail sale price. Goods imported for repacking, labelling and bulk sale to an industrial consumer did not attract MRP valuation, so the duty demand failed. The related confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were also unsustainable. Separately, the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act could not exceed the duty sought to be evaded or Rs. 5,000, whichever was greater; the original penalty was beyond that ceiling and reduction by the lower appellate authority was justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 06:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195776" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 624 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233360</link>
      <description>MRP-based additional customs duty applies only where packaged goods are intended for retail sale and the packaged commodities rules require a declared retail sale price. Goods imported for repacking, labelling and bulk sale to an industrial consumer did not attract MRP valuation, so the duty demand failed. The related confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were also unsustainable. Separately, the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act could not exceed the duty sought to be evaded or Rs. 5,000, whichever was greater; the original penalty was beyond that ceiling and reduction by the lower appellate authority was justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233360</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>