<?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>2004 (5) TMI 225 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53447</link>
    <description>The penalties imposed on the appellants for evading duty under the DEEC Scheme were addressed in this case. Shri Nandalal Kishandas Khemani&#039;s penalty was reduced to Rs. 15 lakhs, while penalties of Rs. 5 lakhs each were upheld for Shri Naresh A. Shah and Shri Mahesh D. Ganatra. The judgment emphasized common liability in conspiracy cases and highlighted the significant roles played by each appellant in the duty evasion scheme, ultimately leading to the rejection of their appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:00:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91924" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 225 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53447</link>
      <description>The penalties imposed on the appellants for evading duty under the DEEC Scheme were addressed in this case. Shri Nandalal Kishandas Khemani&#039;s penalty was reduced to Rs. 15 lakhs, while penalties of Rs. 5 lakhs each were upheld for Shri Naresh A. Shah and Shri Mahesh D. Ganatra. The judgment emphasized common liability in conspiracy cases and highlighted the significant roles played by each appellant in the duty evasion scheme, ultimately leading to the rejection of their appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53447</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>