<?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 (12) TMI 98 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4038</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that a redemption fine cannot be imposed when the goods are not available for confiscation. Citing the cancellation of the bond and Bank Guarantee, the Tribunal found that previous Tribunal decisions supported this stance. The decision aligned with established precedent, granting relief to the appellants who had already paid duty and penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43385" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (12) TMI 98 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4038</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that a redemption fine cannot be imposed when the goods are not available for confiscation. Citing the cancellation of the bond and Bank Guarantee, the Tribunal found that previous Tribunal decisions supported this stance. The decision aligned with established precedent, granting relief to the appellants who had already paid duty and penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4038</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>