<?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>2017 (1) TMI 278 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337198</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld penalties imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 against Moongipa Roadways Pvt. Ltd. and Jabee &amp;amp; Co. Moongipa Roadways Pvt. Ltd. failed to prove their innocence regarding improper imports found in their godown, while Jabee &amp;amp; Co. was implicated in the diversion scheme by mentioning the wrong recipient on documents. The tribunal found no valid defenses for either party, affirming the penalties and rejecting the appeals on 19.12.2016.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2017 09:10:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454151" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 278 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337198</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld penalties imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 against Moongipa Roadways Pvt. Ltd. and Jabee &amp;amp; Co. Moongipa Roadways Pvt. Ltd. failed to prove their innocence regarding improper imports found in their godown, while Jabee &amp;amp; Co. was implicated in the diversion scheme by mentioning the wrong recipient on documents. The tribunal found no valid defenses for either party, affirming the penalties and rejecting the appeals on 19.12.2016.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337198</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>