<?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>1991 (5) TMI 139 - CEGAT , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81321</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 191/80 could not be denied on the basis of a computation unsupported by the assessee&#039;s contemporaneous records. The paper manufacturer maintained logs and returns with departmental knowledge, and those records were accepted over the relevant period. The Tribunal found the department&#039;s percentage calculation relied on assumptions, including averaged consistency readings, unsupported flow assumptions, and disregard of opening and closing balance adjustments. As the proposed computation lacked a reasonable factual basis, the alleged procedural non-compliance did not justify duty demand, and the exemption was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2011 17:46:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118466" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (5) TMI 139 - CEGAT , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81321</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 191/80 could not be denied on the basis of a computation unsupported by the assessee&#039;s contemporaneous records. The paper manufacturer maintained logs and returns with departmental knowledge, and those records were accepted over the relevant period. The Tribunal found the department&#039;s percentage calculation relied on assumptions, including averaged consistency readings, unsupported flow assumptions, and disregard of opening and closing balance adjustments. As the proposed computation lacked a reasonable factual basis, the alleged procedural non-compliance did not justify duty demand, and the exemption was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81321</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>