<?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 (3) TMI 784 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100020</link>
    <description>An adjudication order that left the duty demand unquantified could not be sustained, because quantification was required to be done by the adjudicating authority itself and not left for later determination by another officer. The Tribunal held that fresh determination was necessary after giving the party an opportunity, and the matter was remanded to the original authority for quantification of duty and a new order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:30:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137071" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (3) TMI 784 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100020</link>
      <description>An adjudication order that left the duty demand unquantified could not be sustained, because quantification was required to be done by the adjudicating authority itself and not left for later determination by another officer. The Tribunal held that fresh determination was necessary after giving the party an opportunity, and the matter was remanded to the original authority for quantification of duty and a new order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100020</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>