<?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 (6) TMI 779 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408883</link>
    <description>The appeal was partly allowed, with the revocation of the license set aside. However, the penalty of Rs. 50,000 and the forfeiture of the security deposit were upheld. The Tribunal stressed the significance of adhering to CBLR regulations and highlighted that penalties should align with the evidence of engagement in fraudulent activities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2022 11:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=647654" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (6) TMI 779 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408883</link>
      <description>The appeal was partly allowed, with the revocation of the license set aside. However, the penalty of Rs. 50,000 and the forfeiture of the security deposit were upheld. The Tribunal stressed the significance of adhering to CBLR regulations and highlighted that penalties should align with the evidence of engagement in fraudulent activities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408883</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>