<?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 (7) TMI 143 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51327</link>
    <description>Penalty on a director could not be sustained where the confiscated goods were imported by companies, and no action had been taken against those companies. The Tribunal accepted that the goods had been confiscated and the only dispute concerned the director&#039;s penalty. On the facts, since the companies were the importers, the director could not be penalised in their place. The penalty was therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:18:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89805" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (7) TMI 143 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51327</link>
      <description>Penalty on a director could not be sustained where the confiscated goods were imported by companies, and no action had been taken against those companies. The Tribunal accepted that the goods had been confiscated and the only dispute concerned the director&#039;s penalty. On the facts, since the companies were the importers, the director could not be penalised in their place. The penalty was therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51327</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>