<?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>2014 (2) TMI 287 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243689</link>
    <description>The court allowed the respondent&#039;s application for a change in cause title based on the submission of a fresh Certificate of Incorporation. The Commissioner (Appeals) order setting aside the penalty imposed on the respondent was upheld, with the court leaning towards giving the benefit of doubt to the respondent regarding any intent to evade payment. The court also discussed issues related to duty liability on shortages in inventory, eligibility for exemption on imported components, and the verification of delay in filing appeals. Ultimately, the court dismissed Revenue&#039;s appeal, emphasizing the respondent&#039;s explanations and the lack of evidence supporting intentional evasion of payment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 May 2015 17:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=345244" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 287 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243689</link>
      <description>The court allowed the respondent&#039;s application for a change in cause title based on the submission of a fresh Certificate of Incorporation. The Commissioner (Appeals) order setting aside the penalty imposed on the respondent was upheld, with the court leaning towards giving the benefit of doubt to the respondent regarding any intent to evade payment. The court also discussed issues related to duty liability on shortages in inventory, eligibility for exemption on imported components, and the verification of delay in filing appeals. Ultimately, the court dismissed Revenue&#039;s appeal, emphasizing the respondent&#039;s explanations and the lack of evidence supporting intentional evasion of payment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243689</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>