<?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>2023 (2) TMI 1451 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467320</link>
    <description>An exemption notification for concessional import of machinery for road construction required strict post-import compliance with the undertaking to use the goods exclusively for that purpose and not to sell, dispose of, or divert them for five years. Use of the machine at non-road sites and its rental to another entity was treated as a prohibited disposal, breaching the exemption condition and exposing the goods to confiscation, duty recovery, and redemption fine under the confiscation framework. The same breach also supported separate penalties on the importing company and its managing director, whose involvement in the non-permitted use and renting arrangement was treated as sufficient for penal liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Mar 2026 18:48:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=890609" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (2) TMI 1451 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467320</link>
      <description>An exemption notification for concessional import of machinery for road construction required strict post-import compliance with the undertaking to use the goods exclusively for that purpose and not to sell, dispose of, or divert them for five years. Use of the machine at non-road sites and its rental to another entity was treated as a prohibited disposal, breaching the exemption condition and exposing the goods to confiscation, duty recovery, and redemption fine under the confiscation framework. The same breach also supported separate penalties on the importing company and its managing director, whose involvement in the non-permitted use and renting arrangement was treated as sufficient for penal liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467320</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>