<?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>2004 (8) TMI 235 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53311</link>
    <description>For non-notified goods, the Revenue must first establish smuggled origin, but where the possessor relies on purchase bills to prove lawful import and those bills are found to be fake, the explanation for possession fails and the burden cannot remain on the Revenue alone. On those facts, confiscation was properly restored and the order setting it aside was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:30:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91788" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 235 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53311</link>
      <description>For non-notified goods, the Revenue must first establish smuggled origin, but where the possessor relies on purchase bills to prove lawful import and those bills are found to be fake, the explanation for possession fails and the burden cannot remain on the Revenue alone. On those facts, confiscation was properly restored and the order setting it aside was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53311</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>