<?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 (8) TMI 1520 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279045</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, as the duty liability was not determined under Section 28 due to willful misstatement or suppression. Since the penalty was based on bond non-fulfillment without invoking Section 28, the Tribunal found it unjustified and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2019 07:41:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=560566" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 1520 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279045</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, as the duty liability was not determined under Section 28 due to willful misstatement or suppression. Since the penalty was based on bond non-fulfillment without invoking Section 28, the Tribunal found it unjustified and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279045</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>