<?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 (7) TMI 209 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84983</link>
    <description>An adjudication order was found unsustainable where the authority failed to independently examine the assessee&#039;s explanation for stock shortage and excess arising from flood and cyclone damage, defective verification, and repacking of mixed stock. The record showed delayed departmental action, an initially unsatisfactory verification, and later re-verification, yet the factual explanation was brushed aside without proper appraisal of production records or the loss claimed. Acceptance of the insurance assessment could not substitute for the authority&#039;s own evaluation. The matter therefore required reconsideration afresh after proper examination of the evidence and a reasonable opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2011 18:41:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122050" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (7) TMI 209 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84983</link>
      <description>An adjudication order was found unsustainable where the authority failed to independently examine the assessee&#039;s explanation for stock shortage and excess arising from flood and cyclone damage, defective verification, and repacking of mixed stock. The record showed delayed departmental action, an initially unsatisfactory verification, and later re-verification, yet the factual explanation was brushed aside without proper appraisal of production records or the loss claimed. Acceptance of the insurance assessment could not substitute for the authority&#039;s own evaluation. The matter therefore required reconsideration afresh after proper examination of the evidence and a reasonable opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84983</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>