<?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 646 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97532</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by rejecting duty demands on shortages of imported goods due to lack of evidence and discrepancies in stock reports. The penalty imposed under Section 112 was set aside as the appellant&#039;s substantial manufacturing and export activities indicated no mens rea for clandestine removal. The Tribunal found the penalty unwarranted, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:38:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134590" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 646 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97532</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by rejecting duty demands on shortages of imported goods due to lack of evidence and discrepancies in stock reports. The penalty imposed under Section 112 was set aside as the appellant&#039;s substantial manufacturing and export activities indicated no mens rea for clandestine removal. The Tribunal found the penalty unwarranted, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97532</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>