<?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 (3) TMI 757 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340254</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld duty liability on imported goods under the DEEC Scheme due to diversion for home consumption. The penalty imposed on the director was set aside due to insufficient evidence and reasoning, following precedents where penalties were not upheld for similar reasons. Compliance with import scheme conditions and the need for clear reasoning for penalties on individuals were emphasized.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Feb 2018 12:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=461607" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 757 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340254</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld duty liability on imported goods under the DEEC Scheme due to diversion for home consumption. The penalty imposed on the director was set aside due to insufficient evidence and reasoning, following precedents where penalties were not upheld for similar reasons. Compliance with import scheme conditions and the need for clear reasoning for penalties on individuals were emphasized.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340254</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>