<?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>2009 (2) TMI 219 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48371</link>
    <description>The High Court of Punjab &amp;amp; Haryana at Chandigarh upheld the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, which refused to enhance the fine and penalty under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court found that the redemption fine should be based on the profit margin expected by the assessee from the confiscated goods, and as no inquiry was conducted to determine the market value or profit margin, the Tribunal&#039;s decision was upheld. The Court also held that the imposition of fine under Section 125(1) is discretionary and not mandatory, dismissing the revenue&#039;s plea for increasing the fine and penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 11:16:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86872" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 219 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48371</link>
      <description>The High Court of Punjab &amp;amp; Haryana at Chandigarh upheld the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, which refused to enhance the fine and penalty under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court found that the redemption fine should be based on the profit margin expected by the assessee from the confiscated goods, and as no inquiry was conducted to determine the market value or profit margin, the Tribunal&#039;s decision was upheld. The Court also held that the imposition of fine under Section 125(1) is discretionary and not mandatory, dismissing the revenue&#039;s plea for increasing the fine and penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48371</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>