<?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 767 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368801</link>
    <description>The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the penalty under Section 114AA but upholding the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The decision was based on the appellant&#039;s involvement in the customs clearance process and knowledge of the mis-declaration, leading to the imposition of penalties under the relevant statutory provisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2018 14:11:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=538348" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 767 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368801</link>
      <description>The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the penalty under Section 114AA but upholding the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The decision was based on the appellant&#039;s involvement in the customs clearance process and knowledge of the mis-declaration, leading to the imposition of penalties under the relevant statutory provisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368801</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>