<?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>2002 (3) TMI 569 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102723</link>
    <description>An adjudicating authority must itself determine the duty demand and penalty and cannot leave quantification to a subordinate office. Because the impugned order did not finally quantify the recoverable duty or penalty and instead delegated the working out of the amount to the jurisdictional Range Office, the Tribunal held the adjudication was defective. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after hearing the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:03:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139769" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (3) TMI 569 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102723</link>
      <description>An adjudicating authority must itself determine the duty demand and penalty and cannot leave quantification to a subordinate office. Because the impugned order did not finally quantify the recoverable duty or penalty and instead delegated the working out of the amount to the jurisdictional Range Office, the Tribunal held the adjudication was defective. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after hearing the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102723</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>