<?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 (7) TMI 702 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345590</link>
    <description>Customs duty and consequential penalty were found unjustified against an importer/purchaser of DEPB scrips where the seller had already admitted fraud, accepted that the excess benefit accrued to it, and paid the duty amount to the investigating authority. The record showed that the disputed scrips had been obtained through incorrect documents and later treated as void ab initio, but the duty liability arising from the same scrips had already been discharged by the seller. On those facts, no further liability could be fastened on the importer/purchaser, and the first appellate authority&#039;s order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Feb 2018 17:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=482261" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 702 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345590</link>
      <description>Customs duty and consequential penalty were found unjustified against an importer/purchaser of DEPB scrips where the seller had already admitted fraud, accepted that the excess benefit accrued to it, and paid the duty amount to the investigating authority. The record showed that the disputed scrips had been obtained through incorrect documents and later treated as void ab initio, but the duty liability arising from the same scrips had already been discharged by the seller. On those facts, no further liability could be fastened on the importer/purchaser, and the first appellate authority&#039;s order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345590</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>