<?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>1991 (1) TMI 270 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81049</link>
    <description>A show cause notice is not invalid merely because one passage suggests liability if, read as a whole, it clearly sets out the case to be met and offers inspection and copying of relied-on material. The article also notes that additional service-related documents and a disciplinary appellate order may be admitted where relevant to the factual matrix, but witness statements from a separate proceeding are not admissible in customs adjudication. On the merits, involvement in attempted illegal export was upheld on cumulative witness and circumstantial evidence, and parity with another employee was rejected, though the penalty was reduced on mitigating considerations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:52:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118194" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (1) TMI 270 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81049</link>
      <description>A show cause notice is not invalid merely because one passage suggests liability if, read as a whole, it clearly sets out the case to be met and offers inspection and copying of relied-on material. The article also notes that additional service-related documents and a disciplinary appellate order may be admitted where relevant to the factual matrix, but witness statements from a separate proceeding are not admissible in customs adjudication. On the merits, involvement in attempted illegal export was upheld on cumulative witness and circumstantial evidence, and parity with another employee was rejected, though the penalty was reduced on mitigating considerations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81049</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>