<?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 (5) TMI 669 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327688</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The decision was based on the invalidity of the Show Cause Notice issued by the Assistant Collector, the lack of jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) to issue demands and determine assessments, and the consequential nature of the penalty, which could not survive once the demand of duty and confiscation were dropped against the main party.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2016 14:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=428456" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 669 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327688</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The decision was based on the invalidity of the Show Cause Notice issued by the Assistant Collector, the lack of jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) to issue demands and determine assessments, and the consequential nature of the penalty, which could not survive once the demand of duty and confiscation were dropped against the main party.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327688</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>