<?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 747 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105602</link>
    <description>Discrepancies between the Daily Production Record and the RG-1 Register, together with the allegation of clandestine removal, were found to require fresh adjudication because the factual appraisal was incomplete. The record showed weight variations in departmental and textile research tests, and the authority&#039;s acceptance of a lower loss percentage was not supported by reasons. Limitation and the effect of the assessee operating under physical control also needed reconsideration on the existing material. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication and a reasoned speaking order; the demand and penalty were not finally sustained at that stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 14:55:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142640" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (12) TMI 747 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105602</link>
      <description>Discrepancies between the Daily Production Record and the RG-1 Register, together with the allegation of clandestine removal, were found to require fresh adjudication because the factual appraisal was incomplete. The record showed weight variations in departmental and textile research tests, and the authority&#039;s acceptance of a lower loss percentage was not supported by reasons. Limitation and the effect of the assessee operating under physical control also needed reconsideration on the existing material. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication and a reasoned speaking order; the demand and penalty were not finally sustained at that stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105602</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>