<?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 (11) TMI 238 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88229</link>
    <description>Repeated hearings defeated the plea of denial of personal hearing, as no credible prejudice or supporting material for non-appearance was shown, so the natural justice objection failed. On the manufacturing issue, the record did not support the claim that only an intermediate product emerged under Rule 57F(2); the evidence pointed to manufacture and clearance of the final product, so that contention went against the assessee. However, abatement, returned quantities, and Modvat credit and reversal had not been properly examined and required fresh factual consideration, leading to remand on those issues. Penalty was reduced accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:00:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125295" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (11) TMI 238 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88229</link>
      <description>Repeated hearings defeated the plea of denial of personal hearing, as no credible prejudice or supporting material for non-appearance was shown, so the natural justice objection failed. On the manufacturing issue, the record did not support the claim that only an intermediate product emerged under Rule 57F(2); the evidence pointed to manufacture and clearance of the final product, so that contention went against the assessee. However, abatement, returned quantities, and Modvat credit and reversal had not been properly examined and required fresh factual consideration, leading to remand on those issues. Penalty was reduced accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88229</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>