<?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 (4) TMI 77 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341107</link>
    <description>The appeal challenged the confirmation of duty demand, interest, and confiscation of containers under section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalty imposed under section 112(a) was upheld. Errors in invoking sections 28 and 125 were noted, along with non-compliance with prescribed conditions. The judgment highlighted the lack of evidence for duty recovery and confiscation, leading to the appeal being allowed and the impugned order set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2017 07:24:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=463881" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 77 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341107</link>
      <description>The appeal challenged the confirmation of duty demand, interest, and confiscation of containers under section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalty imposed under section 112(a) was upheld. Errors in invoking sections 28 and 125 were noted, along with non-compliance with prescribed conditions. The judgment highlighted the lack of evidence for duty recovery and confiscation, leading to the appeal being allowed and the impugned order set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341107</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>