<?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 (2) TMI 1395 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461470</link>
    <description>Duty demand and penalties were deleted in a clandestine removal dispute involving tread rubber and pre-cured tread rubber because the Tribunal accepted the assessee&#039;s explanation that the goods had come for replacement and that supporting evidence was produced. The High Court found no reason to disturb that appreciation of facts and evidence, and upheld the Tribunal&#039;s order in favour of the assessee. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2025 18:56:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=812762" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 1395 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461470</link>
      <description>Duty demand and penalties were deleted in a clandestine removal dispute involving tread rubber and pre-cured tread rubber because the Tribunal accepted the assessee&#039;s explanation that the goods had come for replacement and that supporting evidence was produced. The High Court found no reason to disturb that appreciation of facts and evidence, and upheld the Tribunal&#039;s order in favour of the assessee. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461470</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>