<?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 (11) TMI 845 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99269</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found the duty demands unsubstantiated due to lack of evidence supporting the allegations made in the show cause notice. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing concrete proof to establish duty liability and highlighted the necessity of specific allegations within the scope of the notice for imposing duties or penalties. The appeals were allowed with consequential benefits, including setting aside orders of confiscation and penalty imposition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:33:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136324" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 845 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99269</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found the duty demands unsubstantiated due to lack of evidence supporting the allegations made in the show cause notice. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing concrete proof to establish duty liability and highlighted the necessity of specific allegations within the scope of the notice for imposing duties or penalties. The appeals were allowed with consequential benefits, including setting aside orders of confiscation and penalty imposition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99269</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>