<?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>2002 (3) TMI 135 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51309</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was treated as unsustainable where the assessment had only been made provisionally and had not been finally finalised. The Tribunal followed its earlier view that such penalty cannot be imposed before completion of final assessment, because liability under the provision depends on a determined assessment position. On the facts noted, the provisional character of the assessment meant the penalty could not be sustained, and it was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:21:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89787" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (3) TMI 135 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51309</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was treated as unsustainable where the assessment had only been made provisionally and had not been finally finalised. The Tribunal followed its earlier view that such penalty cannot be imposed before completion of final assessment, because liability under the provision depends on a determined assessment position. On the facts noted, the provisional character of the assessment meant the penalty could not be sustained, and it was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51309</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>