<?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>2006 (10) TMI 148 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47773</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal&#039;s judgment and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to examine the broader definition of &quot;prohibited goods&quot; and the evidence of overvaluation and fraudulent intent. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was sent back to the Tribunal for a thorough re-evaluation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2019 18:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86291" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (10) TMI 148 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47773</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal&#039;s judgment and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to examine the broader definition of &quot;prohibited goods&quot; and the evidence of overvaluation and fraudulent intent. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was sent back to the Tribunal for a thorough re-evaluation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47773</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>