<?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>2011 (4) TMI 1144 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212256</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the order of confiscation and penalty imposition due to insufficient evidence proving the goods were of third country origin. The burden of proof was not discharged by the department, leading to the appeal being allowed in favor of the consignor.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 18:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185669" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 1144 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212256</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the order of confiscation and penalty imposition due to insufficient evidence proving the goods were of third country origin. The burden of proof was not discharged by the department, leading to the appeal being allowed in favor of the consignor.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212256</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>