<?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 795 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236503</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected Kemtech&#039;s plea of no undervaluation but remitted the matter back for re-quantification of duty liability and a fresh decision on penalties. The appeals were partially allowed, emphasizing accurate duty calculation and appropriate penalties based on the revised duty liability. Penalties were upheld for individuals involved, pending reassessment of the quantum in light of recalculated duty liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:00:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=198910" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 795 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236503</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected Kemtech&#039;s plea of no undervaluation but remitted the matter back for re-quantification of duty liability and a fresh decision on penalties. The appeals were partially allowed, emphasizing accurate duty calculation and appropriate penalties based on the revised duty liability. Penalties were upheld for individuals involved, pending reassessment of the quantum in light of recalculated duty liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236503</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>