<?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>2013 (3) TMI 45 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221278</link>
    <description>Liability to pay Iron Ore Cess and the related penalty was left open for fresh appellate consideration because the appellant produced payment challans and a supplier letter that had not been before the lower authorities, having been received only after the adjudication order. As the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed an ex parte order, the existing material was not sufficient for final disposal without giving both sides an opportunity to adduce evidence. The appellate order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for de novo decision, with liberty to produce evidence and without insisting on pre-deposit. All issues on merits remained open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2013 11:53:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=194634" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (3) TMI 45 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221278</link>
      <description>Liability to pay Iron Ore Cess and the related penalty was left open for fresh appellate consideration because the appellant produced payment challans and a supplier letter that had not been before the lower authorities, having been received only after the adjudication order. As the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed an ex parte order, the existing material was not sufficient for final disposal without giving both sides an opportunity to adduce evidence. The appellate order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for de novo decision, with liberty to produce evidence and without insisting on pre-deposit. All issues on merits remained open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221278</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>