<?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>2010 (12) TMI 137 - CESTAT, DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202738</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the demand of duty and penalty related to disputed invoices. It emphasized the importance of thorough verification and investigation in establishing duty liability, stating that mere assumptions are insufficient. The judgment highlighted the necessity of concrete evidence to support claims of liability in cases involving disputed invoices and alleged clandestine removal of goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176311" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 137 - CESTAT, DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202738</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the demand of duty and penalty related to disputed invoices. It emphasized the importance of thorough verification and investigation in establishing duty liability, stating that mere assumptions are insufficient. The judgment highlighted the necessity of concrete evidence to support claims of liability in cases involving disputed invoices and alleged clandestine removal of goods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202738</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>