<?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 (7) TMI 216 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89303</link>
    <description>The Tribunal remanded the case to the jurisdictional Commissioner, emphasizing the need to consider actual production figures and grant opportunities for representations in determining furnace capacity for levy and duty collection under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Compliance with statutory provisions, particularly Section 3A(4), requiring consideration of actual production for the relevant period and granting assessees a chance to be heard, was highlighted as essential.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126365" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 216 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89303</link>
      <description>The Tribunal remanded the case to the jurisdictional Commissioner, emphasizing the need to consider actual production figures and grant opportunities for representations in determining furnace capacity for levy and duty collection under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Compliance with statutory provisions, particularly Section 3A(4), requiring consideration of actual production for the relevant period and granting assessees a chance to be heard, was highlighted as essential.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89303</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>