<?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>1995 (2) TMI 167 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84003</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in two appeals by M/s. LML Ltd. against Central Excise duty evasion allegations. The Collector confirmed a duty amount and penalty, including additional demands for transit insurance and salaries. Disputes arose over assessable value calculations, including forwarding charges and various expenses. The Tribunal found impermissible delegation of power to the Assistant Collector and emphasized natural justice principles. The matter was remanded for reassessment, directing the Collector to determine duty payable himself and reassess the penalty. Cooperation and submission of additional evidence were requested for a prompt resolution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:09:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121147" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (2) TMI 167 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84003</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in two appeals by M/s. LML Ltd. against Central Excise duty evasion allegations. The Collector confirmed a duty amount and penalty, including additional demands for transit insurance and salaries. Disputes arose over assessable value calculations, including forwarding charges and various expenses. The Tribunal found impermissible delegation of power to the Assistant Collector and emphasized natural justice principles. The matter was remanded for reassessment, directing the Collector to determine duty payable himself and reassess the penalty. Cooperation and submission of additional evidence were requested for a prompt resolution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84003</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>