https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245599 Incomplete examination of the appellant's claim for repair and reconditioning under Rule 16, the alleged shortages, and the disputed clearance of spares justified remand. The adjudicating authority had relied on broad conclusions without addressing the challans, the asserted repair/reconditioning practice, the credit claim, the explanation for rejected bearings during manufacture, or the submission that the spares entries were only financial adjustments. A fresh adjudication was therefore required after full consideration of the documents, supply of relied-upon material, and an effective opportunity of hearing. The appeals were allowed by way of remand. en-us Tue, 18 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Apr 2014 06:27:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245599 Incomplete examination of the appellant's claim for repair and reconditioning under Rule 16, the alleged shortages, and the disputed clearance of spares justified remand. The adjudicating authority had relied on broad conclusions without addressing the challans, the asserted repair/reconditioning practice, the credit claim, the explanation for rejected bearings during manufacture, or the submission that the spares entries were only financial adjustments. A fresh adjudication was therefore required after full consideration of the documents, supply of relied-upon material, and an effective opportunity of hearing. The appeals were allowed by way of remand. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245599