<?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 (6) TMI 19 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248115</link>
    <description>Imported goods approved by STPI were treated as covered by Notification No. 52/2003-Cus., and the importer&#039;s bona fide belief on eligibility was accepted on the factual record. In that setting, no sufficient basis was found to interfere with confiscation, redemption fine or penalty. The challenge to the adjudicating authority&#039;s view therefore failed, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2014 13:56:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=356753" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (6) TMI 19 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248115</link>
      <description>Imported goods approved by STPI were treated as covered by Notification No. 52/2003-Cus., and the importer&#039;s bona fide belief on eligibility was accepted on the factual record. In that setting, no sufficient basis was found to interfere with confiscation, redemption fine or penalty. The challenge to the adjudicating authority&#039;s view therefore failed, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248115</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>