<?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 (11) TMI 554 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350675</link>
    <description>The tribunal dismissed the appeal, except for setting aside the duty demand and penal action related to the appellant&#039;s past activities and the penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act. The confiscation of goods and penalties imposed were upheld, except for the penalty under Section 114AA, which was set aside due to lack of justification. The tribunal emphasized the necessity of concrete proof to establish importation of dutiable goods for customs duty recovery. The decision was rendered on 06.10.2017.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2018 15:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=495440" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 554 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350675</link>
      <description>The tribunal dismissed the appeal, except for setting aside the duty demand and penal action related to the appellant&#039;s past activities and the penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act. The confiscation of goods and penalties imposed were upheld, except for the penalty under Section 114AA, which was set aside due to lack of justification. The tribunal emphasized the necessity of concrete proof to establish importation of dutiable goods for customs duty recovery. The decision was rendered on 06.10.2017.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350675</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>