<?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>2026 (5) TMI 1040 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791838</link>
    <description>Clear exoneration could not be overturned by a summary remand where the adjudicating authority had found no substantial or corroborative evidence linking the appellant to the alleged smuggling activity. The Tribunal noted that the Department did not properly examine relevant persons so their statements could be treated as evidence, and that WhatsApp chats and surrounding allegations did not establish the appellant&#039;s role in the alleged racket. As the appellate authority did not identify any flaw in the factual findings before remitting the matter, the remand order was unsustainable insofar as it concerned the appellant, and the exonerating adjudication was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 May 2026 08:18:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=902695" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 1040 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791838</link>
      <description>Clear exoneration could not be overturned by a summary remand where the adjudicating authority had found no substantial or corroborative evidence linking the appellant to the alleged smuggling activity. The Tribunal noted that the Department did not properly examine relevant persons so their statements could be treated as evidence, and that WhatsApp chats and surrounding allegations did not establish the appellant&#039;s role in the alleged racket. As the appellate authority did not identify any flaw in the factual findings before remitting the matter, the remand order was unsustainable insofar as it concerned the appellant, and the exonerating adjudication was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791838</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>