<?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 (5) TMI 714 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247787</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals, ruling that penalties under Section 112(i) of the Customs Act were not applicable to the appellants due to the absence of filed Bill of Entry and ownership claims. The judgment highlighted the necessity of establishing ownership and importation through proper documentation to justify penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2015 15:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=356118" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 714 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247787</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals, ruling that penalties under Section 112(i) of the Customs Act were not applicable to the appellants due to the absence of filed Bill of Entry and ownership claims. The judgment highlighted the necessity of establishing ownership and importation through proper documentation to justify penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247787</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>