<?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 (7) TMI 539 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105665</link>
    <description>Conflicting expert opinions on whether the furnace was of batch type or pusher type meant that annual capacity production could not be determined on the existing record. The appropriate course was to have the technical issue examined afresh by the adjudicating authority after giving the assessee a proper opportunity to support its claim. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh adjudication and for a new order based on an evidentiary determination made in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:21:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142703" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (7) TMI 539 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105665</link>
      <description>Conflicting expert opinions on whether the furnace was of batch type or pusher type meant that annual capacity production could not be determined on the existing record. The appropriate course was to have the technical issue examined afresh by the adjudicating authority after giving the assessee a proper opportunity to support its claim. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh adjudication and for a new order based on an evidentiary determination made in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105665</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>