<?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>2015 (10) TMI 185 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264910</link>
    <description>The Tribunal denied benefits to a hospital under Notification No. 64/88-Cus due to the appellant&#039;s failure to substantiate compliance with conditions necessitating free treatment for patients. Despite claims, the appellant could not provide evidence supporting free treatment. The burden of proof rested with the appellant, which they did not fulfill. The penalty was waived, and the case was remanded for reconsideration under Notification No. 65/88-Cus to determine eligibility.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 04 Oct 2015 17:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=399794" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 185 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264910</link>
      <description>The Tribunal denied benefits to a hospital under Notification No. 64/88-Cus due to the appellant&#039;s failure to substantiate compliance with conditions necessitating free treatment for patients. Despite claims, the appellant could not provide evidence supporting free treatment. The burden of proof rested with the appellant, which they did not fulfill. The penalty was waived, and the case was remanded for reconsideration under Notification No. 65/88-Cus to determine eligibility.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264910</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>