<?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>2007 (3) TMI 52 -  CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1493</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed Revenue&#039;s appeal. The penalty imposed on the respondents for amending the IGM after 12 days was deemed unjustified since the mistake was rectified within the stipulated period. The tribunal found no fault in the appellate authority&#039;s findings and concluded that there were no grounds for penalization. Therefore, the appeal was rejected, affirming the original decision regarding the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40904" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (3) TMI 52 -  CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1493</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed Revenue&#039;s appeal. The penalty imposed on the respondents for amending the IGM after 12 days was deemed unjustified since the mistake was rectified within the stipulated period. The tribunal found no fault in the appellate authority&#039;s findings and concluded that there were no grounds for penalization. Therefore, the appeal was rejected, affirming the original decision regarding the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1493</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>