<?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 (12) TMI 130 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33520</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld findings of undervaluation for 8 consignments, confirming duty demand and penalties. However, demand and penalties for 10 consignments were set aside due to insufficient evidence. Confiscation of rubber plastics was also set aside, reducing the redemption fine. Appeals were partly allowed, reflecting these adjustments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72150" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (12) TMI 130 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33520</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld findings of undervaluation for 8 consignments, confirming duty demand and penalties. However, demand and penalties for 10 consignments were set aside due to insufficient evidence. Confiscation of rubber plastics was also set aside, reducing the redemption fine. Appeals were partly allowed, reflecting these adjustments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33520</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>