<?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>2006 (6) TMI 55 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1187</link>
    <description>The Tribunal confirmed a Customs duty demand of Rs. 34,32,122 against M/s. Connectronics &amp;amp; Cables Pvt. Ltd. based on incriminating documents and upheld personal penalties on individuals involved in undervaluation. The dropped duty demand in Chart &quot;D&quot; was remanded for re-examination. The validity of evidence for undervaluation claims was affirmed, and re-examination of duty demand in Chart &quot;D&quot; was ordered. The quantum of penalties was left open for re-quantification based on de novo proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40599" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (6) TMI 55 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1187</link>
      <description>The Tribunal confirmed a Customs duty demand of Rs. 34,32,122 against M/s. Connectronics &amp;amp; Cables Pvt. Ltd. based on incriminating documents and upheld personal penalties on individuals involved in undervaluation. The dropped duty demand in Chart &quot;D&quot; was remanded for re-examination. The validity of evidence for undervaluation claims was affirmed, and re-examination of duty demand in Chart &quot;D&quot; was ordered. The quantum of penalties was left open for re-quantification based on de novo proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1187</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>