<?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 (3) TMI 925 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245477</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed as the Tribunal found no justification for the enhanced redemption fine imposed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of accurately determining the market price and Margin Of Profit (MOP) to justify any enhancement in the redemption fine. Without evidence supporting an increased MOP post-adjudication, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, granting relief based on the lack of justification for the enhanced redemption fine.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2015 11:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350206" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 925 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245477</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed as the Tribunal found no justification for the enhanced redemption fine imposed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of accurately determining the market price and Margin Of Profit (MOP) to justify any enhancement in the redemption fine. Without evidence supporting an increased MOP post-adjudication, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, granting relief based on the lack of justification for the enhanced redemption fine.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245477</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>