<?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 96 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91479</link>
    <description>Fresh documentary evidence, including a catalogue produced before the Tribunal, required reconsideration of the notification benefit claim because the relevant material had not been examined by the lower authorities. The Tribunal directed de novo adjudication on the basis of the newly produced evidence and any other material the appellants chose to place on record, leaving the substantive eligibility issue open for fresh determination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:44:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128541" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (6) TMI 96 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91479</link>
      <description>Fresh documentary evidence, including a catalogue produced before the Tribunal, required reconsideration of the notification benefit claim because the relevant material had not been examined by the lower authorities. The Tribunal directed de novo adjudication on the basis of the newly produced evidence and any other material the appellants chose to place on record, leaving the substantive eligibility issue open for fresh determination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91479</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>