<?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 (1) TMI 443 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118124</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the truck under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the driver&#039;s presumed knowledge of the illicit goods. However, the penalty imposed on the appellant was deemed incorrect, given his lack of awareness. Therefore, the appeal was partially allowed, setting aside the penalty while upholding the confiscation of the truck.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:19:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155121" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (1) TMI 443 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118124</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the truck under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the driver&#039;s presumed knowledge of the illicit goods. However, the penalty imposed on the appellant was deemed incorrect, given his lack of awareness. Therefore, the appeal was partially allowed, setting aside the penalty while upholding the confiscation of the truck.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118124</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>