<?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>2001 (1) TMI 426 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95465</link>
    <description>Power-assisted manufacture of tarpaulins was treated as sufficient to disqualify the respondents from the exemption, because admissions from the partner, staff and contractors showed that three sewing machines were fitted with electric motors and used in the stitching section. The Tribunal held that these statements, recorded during raid and investigation, constituted substantial evidence of power use, and the adjudicating authority erred in insisting on proof of the exact fabric stitched on the electrically operated machines. The respondents offered no plausible explanation to rebut the adverse inference. The order dropping the proceedings was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to adduce further evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:17:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132524" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (1) TMI 426 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95465</link>
      <description>Power-assisted manufacture of tarpaulins was treated as sufficient to disqualify the respondents from the exemption, because admissions from the partner, staff and contractors showed that three sewing machines were fitted with electric motors and used in the stitching section. The Tribunal held that these statements, recorded during raid and investigation, constituted substantial evidence of power use, and the adjudicating authority erred in insisting on proof of the exact fabric stitched on the electrically operated machines. The respondents offered no plausible explanation to rebut the adverse inference. The order dropping the proceedings was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to adduce further evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95465</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>