<?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 (6) TMI 65 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328356</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue appeal due to the repeated non-appearance of the Respondents and upheld the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, despite the Revenue&#039;s argument for penalty under Section 114A. The Tribunal emphasized that the penalty under Section 112 was higher and that the show cause notice had provided for either section. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue&#039;s contentions and affirmed the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2016 11:57:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=430318" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 65 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328356</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue appeal due to the repeated non-appearance of the Respondents and upheld the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, despite the Revenue&#039;s argument for penalty under Section 114A. The Tribunal emphasized that the penalty under Section 112 was higher and that the show cause notice had provided for either section. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue&#039;s contentions and affirmed the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328356</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>