<?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 (12) TMI 244 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351975</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Customs&#039; decision, finding the appellant liable for duty, interest, and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962, due to the use of forged certificates for availing concessional duty. The penalties imposed were justified despite the appellant&#039;s denial of collusion with the forger. The forged certificates invalidated the duty claim, and the extended period for the show-cause notice was deemed applicable due to the fraudulent nature of the documents. Various entities, including ICICI Bank and the appellant, were implicated in the forgery, and the absence of proper countersignatures rendered the certificates invalid for duty concessions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=498661" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 244 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351975</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Customs&#039; decision, finding the appellant liable for duty, interest, and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962, due to the use of forged certificates for availing concessional duty. The penalties imposed were justified despite the appellant&#039;s denial of collusion with the forger. The forged certificates invalidated the duty claim, and the extended period for the show-cause notice was deemed applicable due to the fraudulent nature of the documents. Various entities, including ICICI Bank and the appellant, were implicated in the forgery, and the absence of proper countersignatures rendered the certificates invalid for duty concessions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351975</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>