<?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>2013 (12) TMI 110 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240445</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s appeals, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; decision due to insufficient evidence supporting duty evasion claims related to Bitumen Emulsion invoices. The judgment stressed the necessity of concrete evidence, particularly in cases involving government transactions, and underscored the requirement for thorough investigations before confirming demands solely based on invoice discrepancies.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2013 10:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338103" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 110 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240445</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s appeals, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; decision due to insufficient evidence supporting duty evasion claims related to Bitumen Emulsion invoices. The judgment stressed the necessity of concrete evidence, particularly in cases involving government transactions, and underscored the requirement for thorough investigations before confirming demands solely based on invoice discrepancies.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240445</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>