<?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>1986 (6) TMI 162 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72521</link>
    <description>Natural or storage loss within the recognised administrative tolerance for working loss could not be disallowed without adequate reasons or factual basis. The Tribunal noted that losses up to 1% were treated in the Board&#039;s bulletin as a standard working rule, and that claims below that level were ordinarily not to be doubted, although the authority was only guided by the circular for uniform treatment. Because the rejection order did not dispute the occurrence of loss and relied only on storage period and seasonal climate without satisfactory reasoning, the disallowance was held unsustainable. The appeal was allowed and consequential relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 11:44:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110800" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (6) TMI 162 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72521</link>
      <description>Natural or storage loss within the recognised administrative tolerance for working loss could not be disallowed without adequate reasons or factual basis. The Tribunal noted that losses up to 1% were treated in the Board&#039;s bulletin as a standard working rule, and that claims below that level were ordinarily not to be doubted, although the authority was only guided by the circular for uniform treatment. Because the rejection order did not dispute the occurrence of loss and relied only on storage period and seasonal climate without satisfactory reasoning, the disallowance was held unsustainable. The appeal was allowed and consequential relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72521</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>