<?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 (7) TMI 534 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97937</link>
    <description>Assembling incomplete winding machines raised a question of manufacture and of whether the appellant or the supplier was the manufacturer, but the Tribunal held that the issue could not be finally resolved on xerox copies alone and required verification of the original records. It remitted the manufacture question for de novo adjudication. On limitation, the Tribunal noted prior findings of bona fide belief and absence of wilful suppression in a connected matter and held that the extended period also required fresh examination by the original authority. The adjudication was set aside and both substantive and limitation issues were sent back for reconsideration after hearing the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:10:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134994" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 534 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97937</link>
      <description>Assembling incomplete winding machines raised a question of manufacture and of whether the appellant or the supplier was the manufacturer, but the Tribunal held that the issue could not be finally resolved on xerox copies alone and required verification of the original records. It remitted the manufacture question for de novo adjudication. On limitation, the Tribunal noted prior findings of bona fide belief and absence of wilful suppression in a connected matter and held that the extended period also required fresh examination by the original authority. The adjudication was set aside and both substantive and limitation issues were sent back for reconsideration after hearing the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97937</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>