<?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>2016 (1) TMI 1048 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271256</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the demand notice issued to the appellant for failing to fulfill export obligations under an EPCG license, confirming a demand of Rs. 1,17,97,068/- along with interest at 24%. It found no violation of natural justice in the hearing intimation process and emphasized that technical issues raised by the appellant did not invalidate the notice. The Tribunal highlighted the appellant&#039;s failure to comply with export obligations despite importing goods worth Rs. 2,57,51,728/-, leading to the confirmation of the demand notice and encashment of the bank guarantee. The Tribunal directed a re-calculation of interest based on the correct rate applicable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 31 Jan 2016 23:11:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=414886" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 1048 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271256</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the demand notice issued to the appellant for failing to fulfill export obligations under an EPCG license, confirming a demand of Rs. 1,17,97,068/- along with interest at 24%. It found no violation of natural justice in the hearing intimation process and emphasized that technical issues raised by the appellant did not invalidate the notice. The Tribunal highlighted the appellant&#039;s failure to comply with export obligations despite importing goods worth Rs. 2,57,51,728/-, leading to the confirmation of the demand notice and encashment of the bank guarantee. The Tribunal directed a re-calculation of interest based on the correct rate applicable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271256</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>