<?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 (3) TMI 553 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257619</link>
    <description>Penalty on a customs house agent was found unsustainable where the main importer had already settled the dispute before the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal applied the principle that settlement of the case against the main noticee carries the same consequence for co-noticees, so the penalty proceedings against the agent could not survive independently. The penalty order was therefore set aside and penalty was held not imposable on the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2015 19:41:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=378876" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 553 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257619</link>
      <description>Penalty on a customs house agent was found unsustainable where the main importer had already settled the dispute before the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal applied the principle that settlement of the case against the main noticee carries the same consequence for co-noticees, so the penalty proceedings against the agent could not survive independently. The penalty order was therefore set aside and penalty was held not imposable on the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257619</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>