<?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>2008 (3) TMI 160 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30279</link>
    <description>The Tribunal overturned the penalties imposed on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, citing insufficient evidence to prove their involvement in the evasion of customs duty. The judgment emphasized the necessity of establishing knowledge and intent in cases of duty evasion before penalizing individuals or entities involved in such transactions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=68936" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 160 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30279</link>
      <description>The Tribunal overturned the penalties imposed on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, citing insufficient evidence to prove their involvement in the evasion of customs duty. The judgment emphasized the necessity of establishing knowledge and intent in cases of duty evasion before penalizing individuals or entities involved in such transactions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30279</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>