<?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 (6) TMI 76 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91459</link>
    <description>The statutory right to seek redetermination of annual capacity of production under Section 3A(4) could not be denied solely because the assessee had earlier opted to discharge duty under Rule 96ZO(3). The Tribunal held that the request had to be examined on the basis of actual production, with a fresh opportunity to adduce evidence before the jurisdictional Commissioner. The rejection of redetermination was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration under Section 3A(4) in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:40:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128521" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (6) TMI 76 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91459</link>
      <description>The statutory right to seek redetermination of annual capacity of production under Section 3A(4) could not be denied solely because the assessee had earlier opted to discharge duty under Rule 96ZO(3). The Tribunal held that the request had to be examined on the basis of actual production, with a fresh opportunity to adduce evidence before the jurisdictional Commissioner. The rejection of redetermination was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration under Section 3A(4) in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91459</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>