<?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>2018 (9) TMI 268 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366532</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appellant&#039;s miscellaneous application, allowing the Revenue to encash the bank guarantee to recover the redemption fine. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, does not stay recovery actions and that the relevant CBEC circulars do not restrict the recovery of redemption fines. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of filing a stay application to prevent such recoveries, which the appellant failed to do.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2018 08:57:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=533346" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 268 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366532</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appellant&#039;s miscellaneous application, allowing the Revenue to encash the bank guarantee to recover the redemption fine. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, does not stay recovery actions and that the relevant CBEC circulars do not restrict the recovery of redemption fines. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of filing a stay application to prevent such recoveries, which the appellant failed to do.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366532</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>