<?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>2004 (1) TMI 401 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110453</link>
    <description>Note 4 to Chapter 72 treats hardening or tempering of flat-rolled products as manufacture, so the central question was whether size reduction by cold rolling and annealing could be equated with those processes. The record included technical literature and expert certificates suggesting that cold working may only marginally increase hardness and that true hardening requires heat treatment. Because the adjudicating authority did not meaningfully examine that material and largely reproduced the show cause notice, the Tribunal indicated that the technical evidence needed proper consideration and, if necessary, expert opinion before any conclusion could be sustained. The matter required fresh adjudication on the existing record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:39:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147469" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 401 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110453</link>
      <description>Note 4 to Chapter 72 treats hardening or tempering of flat-rolled products as manufacture, so the central question was whether size reduction by cold rolling and annealing could be equated with those processes. The record included technical literature and expert certificates suggesting that cold working may only marginally increase hardness and that true hardening requires heat treatment. Because the adjudicating authority did not meaningfully examine that material and largely reproduced the show cause notice, the Tribunal indicated that the technical evidence needed proper consideration and, if necessary, expert opinion before any conclusion could be sustained. The matter required fresh adjudication on the existing record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110453</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>