<?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>2001 (6) TMI 340 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96413</link>
    <description>The appeal was partially allowed, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act while upholding the confiscation of the truck with a reduced redemption fine. The judgment emphasized the importance of proving lack of knowledge or connivance to avoid confiscation under the Customs Act and highlighted the need for substantial evidence in such cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:26:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133472" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 340 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96413</link>
      <description>The appeal was partially allowed, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act while upholding the confiscation of the truck with a reduced redemption fine. The judgment emphasized the importance of proving lack of knowledge or connivance to avoid confiscation under the Customs Act and highlighted the need for substantial evidence in such cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96413</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>