<?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 (5) TMI 569 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98538</link>
    <description>Statutory records such as challans and registers must be examined as primary evidence where an assessee offers a documentary defence to allegations of suppression and misuse of invoices. The adjudicating authority cannot reject such material as an afterthought or proceed mainly on statements and assumptions without reconciling them with the documents, considering delay in issuing notice, or granting an effective opportunity, including cross-examination. Because the documentary defence and procedural fairness were not properly addressed, the order was unsustainable and the matter had to be remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with natural justice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2012 10:31:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135595" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (5) TMI 569 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98538</link>
      <description>Statutory records such as challans and registers must be examined as primary evidence where an assessee offers a documentary defence to allegations of suppression and misuse of invoices. The adjudicating authority cannot reject such material as an afterthought or proceed mainly on statements and assumptions without reconciling them with the documents, considering delay in issuing notice, or granting an effective opportunity, including cross-examination. Because the documentary defence and procedural fairness were not properly addressed, the order was unsustainable and the matter had to be remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with natural justice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98538</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>