<?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>2019 (2) TMI 2139 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463581</link>
    <description>The challenge to the redemption fine and simultaneous penalty was not raised before the original authority, so there was no finding on those issues. Fresh consideration was therefore required to allow the appellant to advance its contentions, with supporting decisions, and to obtain a reasoned decision on merits. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication after hearing the appellant on the disputed issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2025 13:36:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=848773" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (2) TMI 2139 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463581</link>
      <description>The challenge to the redemption fine and simultaneous penalty was not raised before the original authority, so there was no finding on those issues. Fresh consideration was therefore required to allow the appellant to advance its contentions, with supporting decisions, and to obtain a reasoned decision on merits. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication after hearing the appellant on the disputed issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463581</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>