<?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 379 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248475</link>
    <description>The court upheld the confiscation of goods and imposed a Rs. 40 lakh fine. The penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellant-firm was also upheld. The appellant was ineligible for concessional duty under Notification No. 55/2003, liable for differential duty and interest. Penalties on individual officials of the appellant-firm and the foreign supplier&#039;s India office were set aside. The penalty on the CHA was reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:31:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=357404" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (6) TMI 379 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248475</link>
      <description>The court upheld the confiscation of goods and imposed a Rs. 40 lakh fine. The penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellant-firm was also upheld. The appellant was ineligible for concessional duty under Notification No. 55/2003, liable for differential duty and interest. Penalties on individual officials of the appellant-firm and the foreign supplier&#039;s India office were set aside. The penalty on the CHA was reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248475</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>