<?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>1993 (3) TMI 228 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82577</link>
    <description>Non-speaking adjudication orders that merely reproduced the assessees&#039; replies without addressing material submissions on private registers, sorting of marble tiles, or whether the seized tiles had reached the RG 1 stage were held to reflect total non-application of mind. Because the orders contained no real reasoning and summarily confirmed the demands, they were set aside. The matters were remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2011 11:15:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119722" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (3) TMI 228 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82577</link>
      <description>Non-speaking adjudication orders that merely reproduced the assessees&#039; replies without addressing material submissions on private registers, sorting of marble tiles, or whether the seized tiles had reached the RG 1 stage were held to reflect total non-application of mind. Because the orders contained no real reasoning and summarily confirmed the demands, they were set aside. The matters were remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82577</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>