<?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 (10) TMI 325 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265050</link>
    <description>The appeal involved issues regarding the levy of Additional Duty of Customs (ADD) on imported goods and the imposition of penalties. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration, leading to an appeal before the High Court. The adjudicating authority confirmed the ADD demand and penalties, but the lower appellate authority partially allowed the appeal, directing a re-quantification of ADD. A miscellaneous application for amending the prayer to allow re-export of goods was granted by the Tribunal, considering the lapse of time since import. The Tribunal also addressed stay applications, concluding that no stay was necessary as the goods were under customs custody and not cleared.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2015 09:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400099" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 325 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265050</link>
      <description>The appeal involved issues regarding the levy of Additional Duty of Customs (ADD) on imported goods and the imposition of penalties. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration, leading to an appeal before the High Court. The adjudicating authority confirmed the ADD demand and penalties, but the lower appellate authority partially allowed the appeal, directing a re-quantification of ADD. A miscellaneous application for amending the prayer to allow re-export of goods was granted by the Tribunal, considering the lapse of time since import. The Tribunal also addressed stay applications, concluding that no stay was necessary as the goods were under customs custody and not cleared.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265050</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>