<?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>1999 (1) TMI 382 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102944</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Chennai allowed the appeals by setting aside the Order-in-Original and remanding the case for reevaluation. The Tribunal emphasized the need to consider the Hon&#039;ble Supreme Court&#039;s decision in O.R.G. Systems, defining the components of a complete computer system. It found the original order lacking in detailed analysis and discussion on the alleged manufacturing activities. The Tribunal deemed the stay order non-speaking and directed a thorough reassessment of evidence to determine if the activities constituted manufacturing or trading, ultimately disposing of the stay applications in favor of the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:19:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139990" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (1) TMI 382 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102944</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Chennai allowed the appeals by setting aside the Order-in-Original and remanding the case for reevaluation. The Tribunal emphasized the need to consider the Hon&#039;ble Supreme Court&#039;s decision in O.R.G. Systems, defining the components of a complete computer system. It found the original order lacking in detailed analysis and discussion on the alleged manufacturing activities. The Tribunal deemed the stay order non-speaking and directed a thorough reassessment of evidence to determine if the activities constituted manufacturing or trading, ultimately disposing of the stay applications in favor of the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102944</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>