<?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>2009 (6) TMI 709 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125499</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals in a case involving the seizure of air-conditioners during a transit check due to suspicions of duty evasion. The duty demands on seized and cleared goods were confirmed, leading to penalties and truck confiscation. The appellant&#039;s challenges regarding delays and machine numbers on invoices were considered, with the Tribunal criticizing the lack of evidence by the original authority. The Tribunal found insufficient proof of clandestine removal and procedural irregularities, granting relief to the appellant based on the absence of substantial evidence to support the allegations. The judgment underscores the importance of thorough verification and substantiated claims in excise duty cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2012 17:08:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162413" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 709 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125499</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals in a case involving the seizure of air-conditioners during a transit check due to suspicions of duty evasion. The duty demands on seized and cleared goods were confirmed, leading to penalties and truck confiscation. The appellant&#039;s challenges regarding delays and machine numbers on invoices were considered, with the Tribunal criticizing the lack of evidence by the original authority. The Tribunal found insufficient proof of clandestine removal and procedural irregularities, granting relief to the appellant based on the absence of substantial evidence to support the allegations. The judgment underscores the importance of thorough verification and substantiated claims in excise duty cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125499</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>