<?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 (5) TMI 1506 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306652</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, determining that the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, could not be upheld due to the absence of mens rea or positive knowledge on the appellant&#039;s part regarding the importation of goods under the DEEC scheme. Consequently, the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was waived, granting relief to the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 May 2024 12:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=704894" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (5) TMI 1506 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306652</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, determining that the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, could not be upheld due to the absence of mens rea or positive knowledge on the appellant&#039;s part regarding the importation of goods under the DEEC scheme. Consequently, the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was waived, granting relief to the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306652</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>