<?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>Strict Interpretation of Exemptions in Clandestine Removal Cases: Burden of Proof on Accused to Claim Exemption.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=43917</link>
    <description>Clandestine removal - Exemptions can be conditional or absolute, yet it is an exemption. Therefore, strict interpretation is to be given and a person, who is charged of clandestine removal with sufficient evidence has to establish his innocence, having failed to discharge the burden cast on them and cannot be heard to say that despite all the charges against them, they are still entitled for exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2019 09:04:18 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2019 09:04:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=553085" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Strict Interpretation of Exemptions in Clandestine Removal Cases: Burden of Proof on Accused to Claim Exemption.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=43917</link>
      <description>Clandestine removal - Exemptions can be conditional or absolute, yet it is an exemption. Therefore, strict interpretation is to be given and a person, who is charged of clandestine removal with sufficient evidence has to establish his innocence, having failed to discharge the burden cast on them and cannot be heard to say that despite all the charges against them, they are still entitled for exemption.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2019 09:04:18 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=43917</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>