<?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>2021 (5) TMI 835 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407956</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the revocation of the appellant&#039;s registration, forfeiture of the security deposit, and imposition of the penalty. The appellant was found to have acted in good faith, complied with regulatory requirements to the best of their ability, and had no knowledge of the fraudulent activities of a third party. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, emphasizing the appellant&#039;s due diligence within their authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2022 11:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=645225" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (5) TMI 835 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407956</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the revocation of the appellant&#039;s registration, forfeiture of the security deposit, and imposition of the penalty. The appellant was found to have acted in good faith, complied with regulatory requirements to the best of their ability, and had no knowledge of the fraudulent activities of a third party. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, emphasizing the appellant&#039;s due diligence within their authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407956</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>