<?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>2006 (2) TMI 425 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117699</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision to set aside the short-levy of duty demand. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue&#039;s appeal, emphasizing the importance of concrete evidence in establishing duty liability. The judgment was based on the principle that allegations must be supported by convincing evidence, not just assumptions or discrepancies in documentation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:42:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154696" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 425 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117699</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision to set aside the short-levy of duty demand. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue&#039;s appeal, emphasizing the importance of concrete evidence in establishing duty liability. The judgment was based on the principle that allegations must be supported by convincing evidence, not just assumptions or discrepancies in documentation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117699</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>