<?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 (6) TMI 260 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260335</link>
    <description>The tribunal found that duty evasion through fabricated TRAs without mentioning GSM resulted in a duty liability of Rs. 29,92,424. Appellants, importers, and brokers sought a waiver of predeposit due to innocence and financial difficulties. However, the tribunal emphasized the seriousness of duty evasion, directing predeposit within 8 weeks. Penalties ranging from Rs. 1,50,000 to Rs. 9,50,000 were imposed on various appellants, who contested them citing financial constraints. The tribunal upheld the penalties and ordered compliance with predeposit orders to protect the Revenue&#039;s interests. Compliance with predeposit rules during the appeal process was stressed to avoid prejudice to the Revenue, with parties directed to make predeposits within the specified timeframe.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2015 07:28:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=387113" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (6) TMI 260 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260335</link>
      <description>The tribunal found that duty evasion through fabricated TRAs without mentioning GSM resulted in a duty liability of Rs. 29,92,424. Appellants, importers, and brokers sought a waiver of predeposit due to innocence and financial difficulties. However, the tribunal emphasized the seriousness of duty evasion, directing predeposit within 8 weeks. Penalties ranging from Rs. 1,50,000 to Rs. 9,50,000 were imposed on various appellants, who contested them citing financial constraints. The tribunal upheld the penalties and ordered compliance with predeposit orders to protect the Revenue&#039;s interests. Compliance with predeposit rules during the appeal process was stressed to avoid prejudice to the Revenue, with parties directed to make predeposits within the specified timeframe.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260335</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>