<?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 278 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92101</link>
    <description>Substantial amendments to a classification list affecting the description and classification of goods cannot be made unilaterally; notice and a personal hearing are required, and failure to observe natural justice vitiates the approval process. An exemption notification prescribing an aggregate clearance ceiling must count all clearances covered by the notification unless it expressly excludes a category, so fabrics processed for other factories were also includible within the limit under Notification No. 111/87. The assessee succeeded on the procedural objection, while the Revenue succeeded on the exemption computation issue, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:03:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129162" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (4) TMI 278 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92101</link>
      <description>Substantial amendments to a classification list affecting the description and classification of goods cannot be made unilaterally; notice and a personal hearing are required, and failure to observe natural justice vitiates the approval process. An exemption notification prescribing an aggregate clearance ceiling must count all clearances covered by the notification unless it expressly excludes a category, so fabrics processed for other factories were also includible within the limit under Notification No. 111/87. The assessee succeeded on the procedural objection, while the Revenue succeeded on the exemption computation issue, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92101</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>