<?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 (6) TMI 784 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423943</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the revocation of the CB license and forfeiture of the security deposit, and reducing the penalty to Rs 10,000. The Tribunal found the Principal Commissioner&#039;s findings unsupported by substantial evidence and upheld the inquiry officer&#039;s report, which found no conclusive proof of the alleged violations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2022 14:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=682418" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (6) TMI 784 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423943</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the revocation of the CB license and forfeiture of the security deposit, and reducing the penalty to Rs 10,000. The Tribunal found the Principal Commissioner&#039;s findings unsupported by substantial evidence and upheld the inquiry officer&#039;s report, which found no conclusive proof of the alleged violations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423943</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>