<?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>2008 (10) TMI 461 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124998</link>
    <description>A statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act was treated as substantive evidence in customs proceedings and could be relied on to link a person to the contravention. The statement was not governed by Section 161 of the CrPC, and where it specifically implicated the respondent and the respondent did not cooperate with summons or the investigation, dropping the penalty proceedings was unsustainable. The appeal succeeded and penalty under Section 112 was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2012 18:49:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161929" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 461 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124998</link>
      <description>A statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act was treated as substantive evidence in customs proceedings and could be relied on to link a person to the contravention. The statement was not governed by Section 161 of the CrPC, and where it specifically implicated the respondent and the respondent did not cooperate with summons or the investigation, dropping the penalty proceedings was unsustainable. The appeal succeeded and penalty under Section 112 was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124998</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>