<?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>1996 (9) TMI 305 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85835</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s application for rectification, emphasizing that the burden of proving smuggled goods lay on the department and that Section 123 was not invoked in the adjudication order. The Tribunal found no mistake in not considering the show cause notice, which was not part of the original record but submitted later. Previous decisions were relied upon to establish that new documents not on record cannot be considered for rectification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:41:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122902" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 305 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85835</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s application for rectification, emphasizing that the burden of proving smuggled goods lay on the department and that Section 123 was not invoked in the adjudication order. The Tribunal found no mistake in not considering the show cause notice, which was not part of the original record but submitted later. Previous decisions were relied upon to establish that new documents not on record cannot be considered for rectification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85835</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>