<?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>1998 (7) TMI 321 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90652</link>
    <description>Additional evidence produced at the appellate stage, including foreign customs correspondence and related reports, was treated as material that had not been considered by the original adjudicating authority. Applying natural justice, the controversy was remanded for de novo adjudication so both sides could address the new material. The merits of confiscation, valuation, and penalties were left open for fresh consideration in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:38:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127714" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 321 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90652</link>
      <description>Additional evidence produced at the appellate stage, including foreign customs correspondence and related reports, was treated as material that had not been considered by the original adjudicating authority. Applying natural justice, the controversy was remanded for de novo adjudication so both sides could address the new material. The merits of confiscation, valuation, and penalties were left open for fresh consideration in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90652</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>