<?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 (5) TMI 851 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104512</link>
    <description>Ex parte adjudication on disputed classification, limitation, retracted statements, alleged clandestine clearances, and the evidentiary value of seized documents required proper factual appreciation before liability and penalties could be decided. Because the record involved multiple fact-intensive controversies and corroboration issues, the appellate forum found final determination inappropriate at that stage and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication by the authorities below.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 13:20:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141551" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (5) TMI 851 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104512</link>
      <description>Ex parte adjudication on disputed classification, limitation, retracted statements, alleged clandestine clearances, and the evidentiary value of seized documents required proper factual appreciation before liability and penalties could be decided. Because the record involved multiple fact-intensive controversies and corroboration issues, the appellate forum found final determination inappropriate at that stage and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication by the authorities below.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104512</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>