<?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>1999 (2) TMI 169 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90288</link>
    <description>An appellate authority cannot revise the classification of goods on a ground not put to the assessee in the original notice; where the notice challenged only exemption, a later change in classification without opportunity to respond is improper, and the revised classification was set aside. For exemption under Notification No. 53/94-C.E., the assessee had to establish the specific condition that hearing-aid parts were used within the factory of production of the hearing aids. As that condition was not proved, the denial of exemption was sustained. The matter thus turned partly on procedural fairness in classification and partly on strict compliance with the notification&#039;s condition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2011 18:10:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127350" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (2) TMI 169 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90288</link>
      <description>An appellate authority cannot revise the classification of goods on a ground not put to the assessee in the original notice; where the notice challenged only exemption, a later change in classification without opportunity to respond is improper, and the revised classification was set aside. For exemption under Notification No. 53/94-C.E., the assessee had to establish the specific condition that hearing-aid parts were used within the factory of production of the hearing aids. As that condition was not proved, the denial of exemption was sustained. The matter thus turned partly on procedural fairness in classification and partly on strict compliance with the notification&#039;s condition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90288</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>