<?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 117 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2570</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal allowed the appeal filed by M/s. Gokul Textiles Corporation, setting aside the penalties imposed on them under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The tribunal found that as a partnership firm, M/s. Gokul Textiles Corporation could not be held liable for penalties related to dealing with imported raw silk. The defense presented by the firm was considered, and since the impugned order did not find the firm responsible for the violations, the penalties were overturned.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41929" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (8) TMI 117 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2570</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal allowed the appeal filed by M/s. Gokul Textiles Corporation, setting aside the penalties imposed on them under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The tribunal found that as a partnership firm, M/s. Gokul Textiles Corporation could not be held liable for penalties related to dealing with imported raw silk. The defense presented by the firm was considered, and since the impugned order did not find the firm responsible for the violations, the penalties were overturned.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2570</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>