<?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>2005 (9) TMI 186 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54760</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of imported goods but reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 1,00,000/- due to bona fide removal reasons. It accepted the EPCG licence, confirming the duty payable as Rs. 5,83,81,368/-, already paid. Duty demand exceeding this amount was set aside. Penalties under Sections 114A and 112 were also set aside, acknowledging no intent to evade duty. The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal recognizing procedural breaches but not warranting penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Apr 2024 13:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93237" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 186 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54760</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of imported goods but reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 1,00,000/- due to bona fide removal reasons. It accepted the EPCG licence, confirming the duty payable as Rs. 5,83,81,368/-, already paid. Duty demand exceeding this amount was set aside. Penalties under Sections 114A and 112 were also set aside, acknowledging no intent to evade duty. The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal recognizing procedural breaches but not warranting penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54760</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>