<?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>2018 (7) TMI 186 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362878</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, dismissing Revenue&#039;s appeal as the demand for duty was time-barred. The Tribunal found no evidence supporting misdeclaration or suppression of facts by the importer, ruling that the demand against the assessee could not be sustained due to lack of grounds for invoking an extended assessment period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2018 09:58:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=525757" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 186 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362878</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, dismissing Revenue&#039;s appeal as the demand for duty was time-barred. The Tribunal found no evidence supporting misdeclaration or suppression of facts by the importer, ruling that the demand against the assessee could not be sustained due to lack of grounds for invoking an extended assessment period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362878</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>