<?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 (1) TMI 708 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125983</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal regarding the validity of a show cause notice proposing enhancement of imported goods&#039; value and recovery of differential duty. The tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision that the notice was time-barred due to lack of corroborating evidence and authenticity of price quotations. Despite the revenue&#039;s argument of new facts emerging during investigations, the tribunal emphasized the necessity of further inquiries before issuing another notice. The lack of direct evidence supporting the price enhancements led to the appeal&#039;s dismissal, affirming the initial decision to drop the proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 17:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162888" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 708 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125983</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal regarding the validity of a show cause notice proposing enhancement of imported goods&#039; value and recovery of differential duty. The tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision that the notice was time-barred due to lack of corroborating evidence and authenticity of price quotations. Despite the revenue&#039;s argument of new facts emerging during investigations, the tribunal emphasized the necessity of further inquiries before issuing another notice. The lack of direct evidence supporting the price enhancements led to the appeal&#039;s dismissal, affirming the initial decision to drop the proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125983</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>