<?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 (4) TMI 173 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30886</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the subsequent owner of imported vessels was liable to pay duty upon breaking the vessels, as per Customs Notifications. The liability under the Notifications passed to the new owner, and rescission did not extinguish this obligation. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s order of confiscation due to the appellant&#039;s breach of Customs provisions but reduced the fine and penalty amounts imposed as they were deemed unreasonable, directing a refund of the excess duty paid by the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69539" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 173 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30886</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the subsequent owner of imported vessels was liable to pay duty upon breaking the vessels, as per Customs Notifications. The liability under the Notifications passed to the new owner, and rescission did not extinguish this obligation. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s order of confiscation due to the appellant&#039;s breach of Customs provisions but reduced the fine and penalty amounts imposed as they were deemed unreasonable, directing a refund of the excess duty paid by the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30886</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>