<?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 (10) TMI 43 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368077</link>
    <description>The appeal challenged the recovery of duty and penalty under sections 28 and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The confiscation and redemption fine were set aside, but duty recovery and penalties were upheld due to non-compliance with post-importation conditions. The Tribunal found the extended recovery period unjustified and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to exemption notification conditions and limitation periods in customs cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2019 11:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=536638" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 43 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368077</link>
      <description>The appeal challenged the recovery of duty and penalty under sections 28 and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The confiscation and redemption fine were set aside, but duty recovery and penalties were upheld due to non-compliance with post-importation conditions. The Tribunal found the extended recovery period unjustified and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to exemption notification conditions and limitation periods in customs cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368077</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>