<?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 (9) TMI 296 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33888</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by Motorola India Pvt. Limited, setting aside the demand for duty and penalty. It concluded that the demand was not justified as MIL had fulfilled its export obligation, the show cause notice by the DRI was lawful, and the larger period for demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act did not apply due to the absence of specific allegations of suppression of facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72516" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 296 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33888</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by Motorola India Pvt. Limited, setting aside the demand for duty and penalty. It concluded that the demand was not justified as MIL had fulfilled its export obligation, the show cause notice by the DRI was lawful, and the larger period for demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act did not apply due to the absence of specific allegations of suppression of facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33888</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>