<?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 (11) TMI 448 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115154</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, NEW DELHI allowed two appeals against the seizure of 11 kg of silver, comprising 10 silver bars, suspected of being smuggled from Pakistan. Penalties were imposed based on inculpatory statements retracted by the appellants, who also presented purchase bills. The tribunal considered the small quantity of silver, lack of substantial evidence beyond the retracted statements, and the application of Section 123, which pertains to cases involving 100 kgs of silver or more. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant(s) due to insufficient justification for the proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 12:56:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152153" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 448 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115154</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, NEW DELHI allowed two appeals against the seizure of 11 kg of silver, comprising 10 silver bars, suspected of being smuggled from Pakistan. Penalties were imposed based on inculpatory statements retracted by the appellants, who also presented purchase bills. The tribunal considered the small quantity of silver, lack of substantial evidence beyond the retracted statements, and the application of Section 123, which pertains to cases involving 100 kgs of silver or more. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant(s) due to insufficient justification for the proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115154</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>