<?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>2022 (2) TMI 209 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417958</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s findings that the respondents had a bona fide belief in the authenticity of documents regarding the country of origin, thus not liable for misdeclaration. The agreed price with the supplier was accepted as valid, and the Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner on the valuation of goods. Penalties against employees were dropped due to lack of evidence of involvement. The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed by the Commissioner. The refund claim was allowed as the retention of the amount was deemed excessive. The Revenue appeal was dismissed, and relief was granted to the respondents in the form of reduced penalties and allowed refund.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Feb 2022 21:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=669417" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (2) TMI 209 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417958</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s findings that the respondents had a bona fide belief in the authenticity of documents regarding the country of origin, thus not liable for misdeclaration. The agreed price with the supplier was accepted as valid, and the Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner on the valuation of goods. Penalties against employees were dropped due to lack of evidence of involvement. The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed by the Commissioner. The refund claim was allowed as the retention of the amount was deemed excessive. The Revenue appeal was dismissed, and relief was granted to the respondents in the form of reduced penalties and allowed refund.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417958</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>