<?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 (7) TMI 442 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119271</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the penalty imposition based on the High Sea Sale procurement, proper documentation, and lack of explosive material indication in the sale agreement. The judgment highlighted the importance of compliance with legal requirements and the absence of evidence indicating the appellants&#039; knowledge or involvement in the presence of explosives, leading to the penalty&#039;s reversal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:02:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156268" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 442 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119271</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the penalty imposition based on the High Sea Sale procurement, proper documentation, and lack of explosive material indication in the sale agreement. The judgment highlighted the importance of compliance with legal requirements and the absence of evidence indicating the appellants&#039; knowledge or involvement in the presence of explosives, leading to the penalty&#039;s reversal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119271</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>