<?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 (2) TMI 768 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS &amp; CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99461</link>
    <description>Denial of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. was held unsustainable where the assessee received only a short hearing notice with a proposal to deny exemption, as this did not constitute proper show cause notice or fair opportunity and breached natural justice. Exemption for char and dolo char used to generate steam and electricity was also upheld because the steam was consumed within the factory, the electricity was produced through a captive manufacturing chain, and the department did not properly quantify any separate use attributable to the disputed inputs. A mere assumption that part of the electricity was diverted outside the factory was insufficient to deny relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136513" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 768 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS &amp; CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99461</link>
      <description>Denial of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. was held unsustainable where the assessee received only a short hearing notice with a proposal to deny exemption, as this did not constitute proper show cause notice or fair opportunity and breached natural justice. Exemption for char and dolo char used to generate steam and electricity was also upheld because the steam was consumed within the factory, the electricity was produced through a captive manufacturing chain, and the department did not properly quantify any separate use attributable to the disputed inputs. A mere assumption that part of the electricity was diverted outside the factory was insufficient to deny relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99461</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>