<?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>2009 (7) TMI 842 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203970</link>
    <description>A tribunal cannot sustain or create a demand on a basis not set out in the show cause notice. Here, the notice alleged only wrongful utilisation of MODVAT credit on exempted PVC film, but the Tribunal shifted to a different factual and legal premise concerning excess credit and the manufacturing process. The HC held that such an expansion was impermissible and beyond jurisdiction, so the Tribunal could not mould relief into a new case not pleaded in the notice. The Court also noted that the notification restriction did not apply where duty-paid input under Heading 39.20 was used to manufacture goods under Heading 59.03. The impugned direction was therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2011 17:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=177517" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 842 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203970</link>
      <description>A tribunal cannot sustain or create a demand on a basis not set out in the show cause notice. Here, the notice alleged only wrongful utilisation of MODVAT credit on exempted PVC film, but the Tribunal shifted to a different factual and legal premise concerning excess credit and the manufacturing process. The HC held that such an expansion was impermissible and beyond jurisdiction, so the Tribunal could not mould relief into a new case not pleaded in the notice. The Court also noted that the notification restriction did not apply where duty-paid input under Heading 39.20 was used to manufacture goods under Heading 59.03. The impugned direction was therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203970</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>