<?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 (9) TMI 1013 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428068</link>
    <description>The appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal, which waived the redemption fine and reduced the penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, was dismissed. The First Appellate Authority&#039;s decision was upheld by the Tribunal, stating that there were no mala fides on the part of the importer and that the Revenue failed to satisfy the conditions to challenge the findings. The Tribunal found the excess importation irregular but not prohibited, as there was no evidence of improper use of the goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2022 08:25:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=691530" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 1013 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428068</link>
      <description>The appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal, which waived the redemption fine and reduced the penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, was dismissed. The First Appellate Authority&#039;s decision was upheld by the Tribunal, stating that there were no mala fides on the part of the importer and that the Revenue failed to satisfy the conditions to challenge the findings. The Tribunal found the excess importation irregular but not prohibited, as there was no evidence of improper use of the goods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428068</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>