<?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 (10) TMI 105 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84569</link>
    <description>Where a remand specifically requires verification of whether bleaching and dyeing were done with the aid of power or steam, the department must complete that factual inquiry and cannot rely on unverified assertions or shift the burden to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that electricity records were not checked, the directed investigation was not completed, and contemporaneous evidence such as the hand-driven machine invoice, factory layout, fuel purchases, and affidavit material was not properly considered. On the material accepted, the processes were not shown to have used power in the alleged manner, so denial of exemption and the consequential duty and penalty could not stand; the prolonged, deficient adjudication also justified setting aside the order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:44:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121713" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (10) TMI 105 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84569</link>
      <description>Where a remand specifically requires verification of whether bleaching and dyeing were done with the aid of power or steam, the department must complete that factual inquiry and cannot rely on unverified assertions or shift the burden to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that electricity records were not checked, the directed investigation was not completed, and contemporaneous evidence such as the hand-driven machine invoice, factory layout, fuel purchases, and affidavit material was not properly considered. On the material accepted, the processes were not shown to have used power in the alleged manner, so denial of exemption and the consequential duty and penalty could not stand; the prolonged, deficient adjudication also justified setting aside the order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84569</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>