<?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 (12) TMI 571 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97710</link>
    <description>Export under AR-4 need not be proved by a single formal document if shipping bills, customs and port records, evidence of goods remaining at the port, payment evidence and the bill of lading together establish that the goods were ultimately taken out of India. The demand could not be sustained without proper consideration of this additional evidence, and the matter was set aside for de novo adjudication after verification of the two consignments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:23:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134767" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 571 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97710</link>
      <description>Export under AR-4 need not be proved by a single formal document if shipping bills, customs and port records, evidence of goods remaining at the port, payment evidence and the bill of lading together establish that the goods were ultimately taken out of India. The demand could not be sustained without proper consideration of this additional evidence, and the matter was set aside for de novo adjudication after verification of the two consignments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97710</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>