<?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 (11) TMI 177 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53550</link>
    <description>A time condition attached to an exemption notification for reimport had to be strictly complied with, and goods reimported after the prescribed period could not qualify for the benefit. The exemption was therefore denied. A mere claim to exemption, however, did not by itself establish mala fides or justify confiscatory or penal consequences. The redemption fine and personal penalty were therefore unsustainable and were set aside, with the release condition modified accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:12:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92027" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 177 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53550</link>
      <description>A time condition attached to an exemption notification for reimport had to be strictly complied with, and goods reimported after the prescribed period could not qualify for the benefit. The exemption was therefore denied. A mere claim to exemption, however, did not by itself establish mala fides or justify confiscatory or penal consequences. The redemption fine and personal penalty were therefore unsustainable and were set aside, with the release condition modified accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53550</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>