<?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>2009 (6) TMI 303 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75322</link>
    <description>The appeals were allowed, vacating the redemption fine and setting aside the penalties imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the lack of evidence of the appellants&#039; knowledge of the forgery and the failure of the department to discharge the burden of proof.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113593" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 303 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75322</link>
      <description>The appeals were allowed, vacating the redemption fine and setting aside the penalties imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the lack of evidence of the appellants&#039; knowledge of the forgery and the failure of the department to discharge the burden of proof.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75322</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>