<?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>2015 (2) TMI 420 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256420</link>
    <description>The appeal against the reduction of penalty under section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 was dismissed by Judge Mr. Manmohan Singh. The appellant failed to prove lack of involvement in mis-declaration, attributing responsibility to the Customs House Agent and its G.Card holder. Despite the appellant&#039;s arguments, the judge upheld the penalty, directing the appellant to deposit Rs. 1 lakh within four weeks and emphasizing compliance with penalty requirements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:48:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=375858" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 420 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256420</link>
      <description>The appeal against the reduction of penalty under section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 was dismissed by Judge Mr. Manmohan Singh. The appellant failed to prove lack of involvement in mis-declaration, attributing responsibility to the Customs House Agent and its G.Card holder. Despite the appellant&#039;s arguments, the judge upheld the penalty, directing the appellant to deposit Rs. 1 lakh within four weeks and emphasizing compliance with penalty requirements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256420</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>