<?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>2025 (2) TMI 22 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765476</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order revoking the Customs Broker License, forfeiting the security deposit, and imposing a penalty on the appellant. It determined that regulation 10(k) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2018 pertains to record-keeping and not to the verification of business premises or the authenticity of a rent agreement. The Tribunal found the Commissioner&#039;s reliance on the alleged forgery of the rent agreement misplaced, especially given the appellant&#039;s longstanding use of the business address and the lack of physical verification by the department. The appeal was allowed, and the penalties were deemed unjustified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2025 10:58:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=794143" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 22 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765476</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order revoking the Customs Broker License, forfeiting the security deposit, and imposing a penalty on the appellant. It determined that regulation 10(k) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2018 pertains to record-keeping and not to the verification of business premises or the authenticity of a rent agreement. The Tribunal found the Commissioner&#039;s reliance on the alleged forgery of the rent agreement misplaced, especially given the appellant&#039;s longstanding use of the business address and the lack of physical verification by the department. The appeal was allowed, and the penalties were deemed unjustified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765476</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>