<?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>2016 (5) TMI 499 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327518</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the order revoking the CHA License and forfeiting the security deposit of M/s. Daroowalla Bros. &amp;amp; Co. The appellant was found not to be involved in the alleged smuggling or unauthorized submission of documents. The charges were primarily based on statements of an unauthorized employee, which lacked corroboration. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not responsible for the offenses and allowed the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 May 2016 01:25:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=427892" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 499 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327518</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the order revoking the CHA License and forfeiting the security deposit of M/s. Daroowalla Bros. &amp;amp; Co. The appellant was found not to be involved in the alleged smuggling or unauthorized submission of documents. The charges were primarily based on statements of an unauthorized employee, which lacked corroboration. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not responsible for the offenses and allowed the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327518</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>