<?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 427 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93926</link>
    <description>Duty liability on hard-waste required fresh examination because the adjudication was inconsistent on the waste&#039;s origin and did not properly consider the assessee&#039;s classification lists, declarations, notification-based claims, applicable duty rate, permissible deductions, and Modvat eligibility. The orders were therefore set aside and the matter remanded to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for a fresh decision on all relevant aspects.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:06:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130986" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 427 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93926</link>
      <description>Duty liability on hard-waste required fresh examination because the adjudication was inconsistent on the waste&#039;s origin and did not properly consider the assessee&#039;s classification lists, declarations, notification-based claims, applicable duty rate, permissible deductions, and Modvat eligibility. The orders were therefore set aside and the matter remanded to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for a fresh decision on all relevant aspects.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93926</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>