<?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 (10) TMI 15 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428457</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty under section 114AA while upholding the re-determined value, confiscation of goods, and penalties under sections 111(m) and 112(a)(ii). The Tribunal found the penalty under section 114AA unsustainable due to the lack of intent, despite affirming other aspects of the impugned order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Oct 2022 09:28:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=692333" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (10) TMI 15 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428457</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty under section 114AA while upholding the re-determined value, confiscation of goods, and penalties under sections 111(m) and 112(a)(ii). The Tribunal found the penalty under section 114AA unsustainable due to the lack of intent, despite affirming other aspects of the impugned order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428457</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>