<?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>1998 (9) TMI 565 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105084</link>
    <description>Denial of relied upon documents essential to the defence, including orders, invoices and purchase records, was held to vitiate the adjudication because it deprived the manufacturer of a fair opportunity to rebut allegations of under-valuation, trading activity, manufacture of parts and inclusion of warranty charges. The matter was therefore remanded for de novo adjudication after supply of the documents and an effective hearing. Personal penalty on the director was also found unsustainable because the show cause notice did not propose any penalty against him and was not served on him, leaving the penalty without a proper notice foundation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2012 14:25:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142123" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (9) TMI 565 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105084</link>
      <description>Denial of relied upon documents essential to the defence, including orders, invoices and purchase records, was held to vitiate the adjudication because it deprived the manufacturer of a fair opportunity to rebut allegations of under-valuation, trading activity, manufacture of parts and inclusion of warranty charges. The matter was therefore remanded for de novo adjudication after supply of the documents and an effective hearing. Personal penalty on the director was also found unsustainable because the show cause notice did not propose any penalty against him and was not served on him, leaving the penalty without a proper notice foundation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105084</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>