<?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>2025 (5) TMI 2016 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771744</link>
    <description>CESTAT New Delhi set aside customs duty demand and penalties imposed on importer for alleged misdeclaration of goods as &quot;RBD Palmolein Mixture.&quot; The tribunal found that the five-year delay in issuing show cause notice was caused by the Commissioner, not the appellant. The Commissioner denied appellant&#039;s requests for sample retesting and cross-examination of testing officials, removing possibilities to establish the true nature of imported goods. Test reports only confirmed samples met RBD Palmolein standards but did not state goods were not RBD Palmolein mixture as declared. With statements under Section 108 becoming inadmissible due to non-compliance with Section 138B procedures, the misdeclaration allegation remained unsubstantiated. Appeal allowed with consequential relief granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 May 2025 08:55:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=825491" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 2016 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771744</link>
      <description>CESTAT New Delhi set aside customs duty demand and penalties imposed on importer for alleged misdeclaration of goods as &quot;RBD Palmolein Mixture.&quot; The tribunal found that the five-year delay in issuing show cause notice was caused by the Commissioner, not the appellant. The Commissioner denied appellant&#039;s requests for sample retesting and cross-examination of testing officials, removing possibilities to establish the true nature of imported goods. Test reports only confirmed samples met RBD Palmolein standards but did not state goods were not RBD Palmolein mixture as declared. With statements under Section 108 becoming inadmissible due to non-compliance with Section 138B procedures, the misdeclaration allegation remained unsubstantiated. Appeal allowed with consequential relief granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771744</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>