<?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 (5) TMI 515 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114790</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found no legal infirmity in the import transaction because the Commissioner had already recorded that there was no evidence of any violation of the law governing the consignment. The Revenue&#039;s reliance on the exporter&#039;s past conduct was insufficient, since it did not identify any specific contravention in relation to the import under review. On that basis, the challenge was found to lack merit and was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 11:30:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151789" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 515 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114790</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found no legal infirmity in the import transaction because the Commissioner had already recorded that there was no evidence of any violation of the law governing the consignment. The Revenue&#039;s reliance on the exporter&#039;s past conduct was insufficient, since it did not identify any specific contravention in relation to the import under review. On that basis, the challenge was found to lack merit and was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114790</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>