<?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>2000 (7) TMI 417 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93916</link>
    <description>Duty demand on alleged yarn shortage could not be sustained without first determining whether the shortage related to single ply yarn at the spindle stage or merely reflected weight difference arising from conversion into doubled or multi-folded yarn. The departmental working of the shortage was not explained in the orders below, and the defence that conversion process and waste generation caused the apparent difference required examination. Because the material factual issue had not been addressed, the basis for the demand remained incomplete, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration and a fresh order after hearing the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:33:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130976" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 417 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93916</link>
      <description>Duty demand on alleged yarn shortage could not be sustained without first determining whether the shortage related to single ply yarn at the spindle stage or merely reflected weight difference arising from conversion into doubled or multi-folded yarn. The departmental working of the shortage was not explained in the orders below, and the defence that conversion process and waste generation caused the apparent difference required examination. Because the material factual issue had not been addressed, the basis for the demand remained incomplete, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration and a fresh order after hearing the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93916</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>