<?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 645 - CESTAT  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248741</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order for the enhancement of penalty, as the department had accepted that no penalty was warranted. The Tribunal found that since the penalty was not warranted at all, the question of enhancing it did not arise. The Tribunal differentiated this case from the cited case law, emphasizing the unique circumstances. Consequently, the impugned order was deemed to have no merit, and the appeals were allowed, with the stay application disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:39:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=357938" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (6) TMI 645 - CESTAT  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248741</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order for the enhancement of penalty, as the department had accepted that no penalty was warranted. The Tribunal found that since the penalty was not warranted at all, the question of enhancing it did not arise. The Tribunal differentiated this case from the cited case law, emphasizing the unique circumstances. Consequently, the impugned order was deemed to have no merit, and the appeals were allowed, with the stay application disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248741</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>