<?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>1998 (6) TMI 229 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89289</link>
    <description>An adjudication that does not address material defences, crucial factual questions, and the principles of natural justice is liable to be set aside and sent back for fresh consideration. The order here failed to examine whether the assessee was the real manufacturer, whether the units were independent or dummy units, whether any flow back was proved, and whether limitation and service of notices on all concerned units were properly considered. It also omitted findings on the representative basis used to allege clearances and on several written submissions. The order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for de novo adjudication after hearing the appellants on all relevant issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 10:41:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126351" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (6) TMI 229 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89289</link>
      <description>An adjudication that does not address material defences, crucial factual questions, and the principles of natural justice is liable to be set aside and sent back for fresh consideration. The order here failed to examine whether the assessee was the real manufacturer, whether the units were independent or dummy units, whether any flow back was proved, and whether limitation and service of notices on all concerned units were properly considered. It also omitted findings on the representative basis used to allege clearances and on several written submissions. The order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for de novo adjudication after hearing the appellants on all relevant issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89289</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>