<?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 (4) TMI 349 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111566</link>
    <description>Modvat credit allowed on the basis of additional documents could not stand where the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted fresh material without notice to the Department or verification from the field office. The prior denial of credit rested on incomplete invoice particulars and mismatches in quantity and duty details under Rule 57GG, but the decisive defect was the denial of a fair hearing when new evidence was relied upon. A quasi-judicial order founded on additional evidence requires the opposing party to be given an opportunity to examine and meet that material. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after hearing both sides.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:16:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148582" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (4) TMI 349 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111566</link>
      <description>Modvat credit allowed on the basis of additional documents could not stand where the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted fresh material without notice to the Department or verification from the field office. The prior denial of credit rested on incomplete invoice particulars and mismatches in quantity and duty details under Rule 57GG, but the decisive defect was the denial of a fair hearing when new evidence was relied upon. A quasi-judicial order founded on additional evidence requires the opposing party to be given an opportunity to examine and meet that material. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after hearing both sides.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111566</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>