<?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 (8) TMI 570 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236278</link>
    <description>The adjudicating authority imposed penalties on various appellants for abetting the diversion of imported Muriate of Potash (MOP) for unauthorized use under Sections 112(b) and 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. M/s Indian Potash Ltd. demonstrated proper accounting, leading to a waiver of pre-deposit. Waivers and stays of recovery were granted based on individual circumstances: M/s Poshak Fertilizers received unconditional waiver, transporters faced vehicle confiscation, exporters as Industrial Salt were absolved from penalties, and fair pre-deposits led to waivers for others. Compliance reporting was required, ensuring a balanced assessment of penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=198685" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 570 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236278</link>
      <description>The adjudicating authority imposed penalties on various appellants for abetting the diversion of imported Muriate of Potash (MOP) for unauthorized use under Sections 112(b) and 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. M/s Indian Potash Ltd. demonstrated proper accounting, leading to a waiver of pre-deposit. Waivers and stays of recovery were granted based on individual circumstances: M/s Poshak Fertilizers received unconditional waiver, transporters faced vehicle confiscation, exporters as Industrial Salt were absolved from penalties, and fair pre-deposits led to waivers for others. Compliance reporting was required, ensuring a balanced assessment of penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236278</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>