<?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>2019 (8) TMI 694 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384505</link>
    <description>The penalties imposed on individuals under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, were set aside as the court found that the individuals were not aware of the contents of the seized gold bars, and there was no evidence to support the presumption that they had knowledge of the confiscated goods. The court concluded that penalties based on assumptions and presumptions were not permissible under the law, leading to the allowances of both appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2020 11:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=583714" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 694 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384505</link>
      <description>The penalties imposed on individuals under Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, were set aside as the court found that the individuals were not aware of the contents of the seized gold bars, and there was no evidence to support the presumption that they had knowledge of the confiscated goods. The court concluded that penalties based on assumptions and presumptions were not permissible under the law, leading to the allowances of both appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384505</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>