<?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 (10) TMI 162 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82829</link>
    <description>An excise adjudication order was set aside because it did not consider the assessee&#039;s submissions on marketability, captive consumption, limitation, and departmental knowledge. The resin mixtures were used only within the factory for manufacture of GRP products, and the challenge was that they were unstable and not marketable, affecting excisability and the extended period allegation of suppression. The order also lacked a reasoned finding on limitation. It was held to be a non-speaking order showing non-application of mind, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after hearing the appellants on merits and limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2011 16:01:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119974" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (10) TMI 162 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82829</link>
      <description>An excise adjudication order was set aside because it did not consider the assessee&#039;s submissions on marketability, captive consumption, limitation, and departmental knowledge. The resin mixtures were used only within the factory for manufacture of GRP products, and the challenge was that they were unstable and not marketable, affecting excisability and the extended period allegation of suppression. The order also lacked a reasoned finding on limitation. It was held to be a non-speaking order showing non-application of mind, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after hearing the appellants on merits and limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82829</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>