<?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 (11) TMI 1337 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389088</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the denial of the exemption benefit, the demand for differential duty, the confiscation of goods, and the penalties on the Director. However, it set aside the demand for interest under Section 28AB and the penalty under Section 114A due to their non-retrospective applicability. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Nov 2019 12:51:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=595810" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (11) TMI 1337 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389088</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the denial of the exemption benefit, the demand for differential duty, the confiscation of goods, and the penalties on the Director. However, it set aside the demand for interest under Section 28AB and the penalty under Section 114A due to their non-retrospective applicability. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389088</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>