<?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>2004 (2) TMI 608 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113379</link>
    <description>In a clandestine removal matter, the Tribunal found the seized goods, parallel invoices, recovered documents and statements sufficient at the interim stage to indicate possible duty evasion. As no financial hardship was pleaded and the applicants failed to show a strong or even reasonable prima facie case, the Tribunal declined to exercise its discretion to waive pre-deposit of duty and penalties. The stay applications were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 May 2012 10:47:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150385" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 608 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113379</link>
      <description>In a clandestine removal matter, the Tribunal found the seized goods, parallel invoices, recovered documents and statements sufficient at the interim stage to indicate possible duty evasion. As no financial hardship was pleaded and the applicants failed to show a strong or even reasonable prima facie case, the Tribunal declined to exercise its discretion to waive pre-deposit of duty and penalties. The stay applications were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113379</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>