<?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>1984 (9) TMI 286 - CEGAT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167209</link>
    <description>Rule 56B was treated as a special procedural provision permitting removal in bond of excisable semi-finished goods for further manufacture, and the earlier permission, integrated unit arrangement, and intended further processing of polyester filament yarn were relevant to that assessment. The abrupt refusal on the footing that the goods were not semi-finished goods was not accepted as a sound basis for final disposal, so the matter required reconsideration. The withdrawal and refusal were also made ex parte without giving the assessee an effective opportunity to be heard, and the discretionary power under Rule 56B had to be exercised consistently with natural justice. The prior orders were set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision after hearing the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 22 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:52:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=370753" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (9) TMI 286 - CEGAT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167209</link>
      <description>Rule 56B was treated as a special procedural provision permitting removal in bond of excisable semi-finished goods for further manufacture, and the earlier permission, integrated unit arrangement, and intended further processing of polyester filament yarn were relevant to that assessment. The abrupt refusal on the footing that the goods were not semi-finished goods was not accepted as a sound basis for final disposal, so the matter required reconsideration. The withdrawal and refusal were also made ex parte without giving the assessee an effective opportunity to be heard, and the discretionary power under Rule 56B had to be exercised consistently with natural justice. The prior orders were set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision after hearing the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 22 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167209</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>