<?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>2000 (7) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46240</link>
    <description>The Court upheld the decision of the Customs, Excise &amp;amp; Gold (Control) Tribunal to confiscate the truck used in a smuggling operation under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner failed to prove the lack of knowledge or connivance required under the statute, leading to the dismissal of the petition. The Tribunal found no evidence implicating the petitioner in the smuggling activities but determined the truck was liable for confiscation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:22:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84766" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46240</link>
      <description>The Court upheld the decision of the Customs, Excise &amp;amp; Gold (Control) Tribunal to confiscate the truck used in a smuggling operation under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner failed to prove the lack of knowledge or connivance required under the statute, leading to the dismissal of the petition. The Tribunal found no evidence implicating the petitioner in the smuggling activities but determined the truck was liable for confiscation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46240</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>