<?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 (12) TMI 475 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102337</link>
    <description>An adjudication order that merely reproduces statements without discussing evidence or recording reasons is a non-speaking order and cannot stand. The authority must show application of mind and a clear basis for its conclusions; here, that requirement was absent, so the order was unsustainable. The matter was therefore set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication by the original authority, with the appellants to be given an opportunity to file a reply and be heard afresh.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:20:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139386" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (12) TMI 475 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102337</link>
      <description>An adjudication order that merely reproduces statements without discussing evidence or recording reasons is a non-speaking order and cannot stand. The authority must show application of mind and a clear basis for its conclusions; here, that requirement was absent, so the order was unsustainable. The matter was therefore set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication by the original authority, with the appellants to be given an opportunity to file a reply and be heard afresh.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102337</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>