<?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>2001 (7) TMI 181 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50662</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, and ordering the release of the seized computer parts to the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence proving smuggling and the failure of the Revenue to establish the appellant&#039;s knowledge of the goods being smuggled, leading to the decision in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:04:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89141" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 181 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50662</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, and ordering the release of the seized computer parts to the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence proving smuggling and the failure of the Revenue to establish the appellant&#039;s knowledge of the goods being smuggled, leading to the decision in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50662</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>