<?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 (12) TMI 1120 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372351</link>
    <description>Transferee importers who used transferable DEPB scrips and DFIA licences were held not liable to confiscation, duty demand or penalty where the licences were later cancelled ab initio on alleged overvaluation and misrepresentation by the original exporters. The Tribunal treated the appeals as covered by earlier authority on identical facts and accepted that cancellation of the instruments did not, by itself, sustain adverse action against the transferees in the present proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2018 06:51:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=548011" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 1120 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372351</link>
      <description>Transferee importers who used transferable DEPB scrips and DFIA licences were held not liable to confiscation, duty demand or penalty where the licences were later cancelled ab initio on alleged overvaluation and misrepresentation by the original exporters. The Tribunal treated the appeals as covered by earlier authority on identical facts and accepted that cancellation of the instruments did not, by itself, sustain adverse action against the transferees in the present proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372351</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>