<?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>2024 (7) TMI 562 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755342</link>
    <description>Where bills of entry were only provisionally assessed under Section 18 of the Customs Act, a demand notice under Section 28 for duty recovery, along with confiscation and penalties, was held premature because final assessment had to be completed first before any short-levy or non-levy claim could arise. The Tribunal also held that punitive action could not be sustained at the provisional stage. The ex parte adjudication was further found procedurally unfair because the noticees were not given an adequate opportunity to respond, and the request to explore settlement was not properly considered. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the assessee succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=759701" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 562 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755342</link>
      <description>Where bills of entry were only provisionally assessed under Section 18 of the Customs Act, a demand notice under Section 28 for duty recovery, along with confiscation and penalties, was held premature because final assessment had to be completed first before any short-levy or non-levy claim could arise. The Tribunal also held that punitive action could not be sustained at the provisional stage. The ex parte adjudication was further found procedurally unfair because the noticees were not given an adequate opportunity to respond, and the request to explore settlement was not properly considered. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the assessee succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755342</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>