<?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>2019 (4) TMI 1098 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378654</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD upheld all impugned orders and rejected the appeals presented by Arshiya Supply Chain Management Pvt. Ltd. The appellant was accused of aiding importers in evading the Additional Duty of Customs, also known as SAD, by allowing them to warehouse goods without paying the duty. Despite the appellant&#039;s request for adjournment being denied, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere in the impugned orders, emphasizing the appellant&#039;s role in facilitating the duty evasion. The Tribunal affirmed the allegations and dismissed the appeals, concluding that the appellant was assisting in the evasion of the Additional Duty of Customs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2019 08:17:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=567553" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 1098 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378654</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD upheld all impugned orders and rejected the appeals presented by Arshiya Supply Chain Management Pvt. Ltd. The appellant was accused of aiding importers in evading the Additional Duty of Customs, also known as SAD, by allowing them to warehouse goods without paying the duty. Despite the appellant&#039;s request for adjournment being denied, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere in the impugned orders, emphasizing the appellant&#039;s role in facilitating the duty evasion. The Tribunal affirmed the allegations and dismissed the appeals, concluding that the appellant was assisting in the evasion of the Additional Duty of Customs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378654</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>