<?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 (10) TMI 507 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252373</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant for alleged violations of Sections 40 &amp;amp; 51. The appellant successfully argued that the show cause notice was time-barred, emphasizing lack of control over the loading process and involvement of a Customs House Agent. The Tribunal found that the exporter had no control over loading onto the vessel, leading to the conclusion that no penalty should be imposed under Section 114(iii) of the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=367202" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (10) TMI 507 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252373</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant for alleged violations of Sections 40 &amp;amp; 51. The appellant successfully argued that the show cause notice was time-barred, emphasizing lack of control over the loading process and involvement of a Customs House Agent. The Tribunal found that the exporter had no control over loading onto the vessel, leading to the conclusion that no penalty should be imposed under Section 114(iii) of the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252373</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>