<?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 (8) TMI 106 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2547</link>
    <description>The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order for the confiscation of imported &#039;cold rolled steel strips in coil form&#039; due to non-compliance with Notification No. 44. Fines and penalties were imposed under the Customs Act. The case was remanded for re-examination based on BIS clarifications, and the Tribunal ruled in favor of the importers, setting aside the impugned order. The goods were found to conform to relevant standards, and the requirement for BIS registration was deemed unnecessary.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41906" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (8) TMI 106 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2547</link>
      <description>The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order for the confiscation of imported &#039;cold rolled steel strips in coil form&#039; due to non-compliance with Notification No. 44. Fines and penalties were imposed under the Customs Act. The case was remanded for re-examination based on BIS clarifications, and the Tribunal ruled in favor of the importers, setting aside the impugned order. The goods were found to conform to relevant standards, and the requirement for BIS registration was deemed unnecessary.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2547</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>