<?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 1118 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340615</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to insufficient evidence linking the appellant to the confiscated goods. The jurisdictional issue did not hinder the Tribunal from addressing the substantive matter, and the decision was based on a thorough analysis of legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2017 07:16:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=462496" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1118 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340615</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to insufficient evidence linking the appellant to the confiscated goods. The jurisdictional issue did not hinder the Tribunal from addressing the substantive matter, and the decision was based on a thorough analysis of legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340615</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>