<?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 (8) TMI 548 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114382</link>
    <description>The Tribunal should allow parties to place certified bills of entry and other supporting documents showing that foreign exchange remittances were linked to actual imports, and it should reconsider the stay applications on that basis. Where penalties were imposed for non-production of import evidence and the show cause notices were issued after a substantial lapse of time, the appellate forum was expected to treat the appeal as a continuation of the original proceedings and consider additional material rather than reject relief on a technical objection to maintainability. The documents were therefore admissible for reconsideration, and the stay applications had to be reheard.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 12:07:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151381" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 548 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114382</link>
      <description>The Tribunal should allow parties to place certified bills of entry and other supporting documents showing that foreign exchange remittances were linked to actual imports, and it should reconsider the stay applications on that basis. Where penalties were imposed for non-production of import evidence and the show cause notices were issued after a substantial lapse of time, the appellate forum was expected to treat the appeal as a continuation of the original proceedings and consider additional material rather than reject relief on a technical objection to maintainability. The documents were therefore admissible for reconsideration, and the stay applications had to be reheard.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114382</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>