<?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>2000 (5) TMI 446 - CEGAT, MUMBAI3</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94724</link>
    <description>The tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under Sections 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, citing insufficient evidence to support the penalty. The tribunal emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence and questioned the validity of the retracted statement in customs cases. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief according to law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 06 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Dec 2011 12:51:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131783" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 446 - CEGAT, MUMBAI3</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94724</link>
      <description>The tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under Sections 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, citing insufficient evidence to support the penalty. The tribunal emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence and questioned the validity of the retracted statement in customs cases. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief according to law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 06 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94724</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>