<?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>1996 (3) TMI 276 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85296</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not barred by time as the order was deemed effective on a later date. Regarding the third show cause notice, the matter was remanded for further verification on whether assessments were provisional or final. The first and second show cause notices were also remanded for the Collector to consider if the extended period of limitation applied. The Tribunal directed that the assessee be given an opportunity to address alleged violations of natural justice. Additionally, it was determined that the Collector must quantify the demand instead of delegating this task. The impugned order was set aside, and the proceedings were remanded for fresh disposal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 10:31:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122363" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 276 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85296</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not barred by time as the order was deemed effective on a later date. Regarding the third show cause notice, the matter was remanded for further verification on whether assessments were provisional or final. The first and second show cause notices were also remanded for the Collector to consider if the extended period of limitation applied. The Tribunal directed that the assessee be given an opportunity to address alleged violations of natural justice. Additionally, it was determined that the Collector must quantify the demand instead of delegating this task. The impugned order was set aside, and the proceedings were remanded for fresh disposal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85296</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>