<?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 (10) TMI 256 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91683</link>
    <description>Multiple units were treated inconsistently: the department proceeded on the basis that only one unit was the real manufacturer, yet the adjudicating authority confirmed duty and penalties collectively against several units as separate assessees. Because the liability basis was internally inconsistent, the order could not be sustained and required fresh consideration on both liability and the status of the units. The matter was therefore remanded for de novo adjudication after giving the appellants an opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:01:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128745" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (10) TMI 256 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91683</link>
      <description>Multiple units were treated inconsistently: the department proceeded on the basis that only one unit was the real manufacturer, yet the adjudicating authority confirmed duty and penalties collectively against several units as separate assessees. Because the liability basis was internally inconsistent, the order could not be sustained and required fresh consideration on both liability and the status of the units. The matter was therefore remanded for de novo adjudication after giving the appellants an opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91683</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>