<?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 (9) TMI 512 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94799</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the order-in-original in two appeals challenging duty demand and penalty imposition, emphasizing the necessity of issuing show cause notices to all relevant units before clubbing production for duty demand confirmation. The decision highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence, lack of financial interdependence between units, and procedural irregularity in not notifying one unit before attributing its production to the appellant. The judgment underscored the insufficiency of evidence beyond retracted statements, leading to the appeals being allowed due to the department&#039;s failure to substantiate the combined production as the appellant&#039;s liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Dec 2011 18:20:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131858" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 512 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94799</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the order-in-original in two appeals challenging duty demand and penalty imposition, emphasizing the necessity of issuing show cause notices to all relevant units before clubbing production for duty demand confirmation. The decision highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence, lack of financial interdependence between units, and procedural irregularity in not notifying one unit before attributing its production to the appellant. The judgment underscored the insufficiency of evidence beyond retracted statements, leading to the appeals being allowed due to the department&#039;s failure to substantiate the combined production as the appellant&#039;s liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94799</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>