<?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>1992 (3) TMI 206 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81834</link>
    <description>An exemption notification with independent alternative provisos requires the adjudicating authority to examine each claimed route to relief on its own facts and record a reasoned finding. Here, the claim under the proviso relating to prior availment of the earlier small-scale exemption was not factually examined, while the rejection focused mainly on turnover under the other proviso. Because the factual basis for eligibility under the alternative route was left unresolved and the prior Tribunal view was not properly distinguished, the adverse order could not stand. The matter was remanded for fresh verification of eligibility and decision in accordance with law after hearing the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:52:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118979" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (3) TMI 206 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81834</link>
      <description>An exemption notification with independent alternative provisos requires the adjudicating authority to examine each claimed route to relief on its own facts and record a reasoned finding. Here, the claim under the proviso relating to prior availment of the earlier small-scale exemption was not factually examined, while the rejection focused mainly on turnover under the other proviso. Because the factual basis for eligibility under the alternative route was left unresolved and the prior Tribunal view was not properly distinguished, the adverse order could not stand. The matter was remanded for fresh verification of eligibility and decision in accordance with law after hearing the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81834</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>