<?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 (4) TMI 234 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91398</link>
    <description>Subsequent approval from the Ministry of Industry, obtained after the impugned order, meant that entitlement and connected claims could not be finally determined on the existing record. The adjudicating authority was required to re-examine the matter afresh, permit the parties to place evidence, and consider all connected pleas before deciding the claims in accordance with law. The matter was therefore remanded for de novo consideration and a fresh decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:15:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128460" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (4) TMI 234 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91398</link>
      <description>Subsequent approval from the Ministry of Industry, obtained after the impugned order, meant that entitlement and connected claims could not be finally determined on the existing record. The adjudicating authority was required to re-examine the matter afresh, permit the parties to place evidence, and consider all connected pleas before deciding the claims in accordance with law. The matter was therefore remanded for de novo consideration and a fresh decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91398</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>