<?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>2017 (2) TMI 670 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338970</link>
    <description>Entitlement to Notification No. 8/97-CE depended on proof that DTA clearances were manufactured wholly from indigenous raw materials, and the existing record was found insufficient to finally decide that factual condition. The matter was remitted for de novo adjudication so the appellants could produce procurement, consumption, production and clearance records, along with supporting documentary evidence. The limitation question, including alleged suppression and invocation of the extended period, was also left open for fresh consideration on the complete record. The impugned order was set aside and the authority was directed to decide the dispute afresh after giving the appellants an opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2017 12:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=458752" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 670 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338970</link>
      <description>Entitlement to Notification No. 8/97-CE depended on proof that DTA clearances were manufactured wholly from indigenous raw materials, and the existing record was found insufficient to finally decide that factual condition. The matter was remitted for de novo adjudication so the appellants could produce procurement, consumption, production and clearance records, along with supporting documentary evidence. The limitation question, including alleged suppression and invocation of the extended period, was also left open for fresh consideration on the complete record. The impugned order was set aside and the authority was directed to decide the dispute afresh after giving the appellants an opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338970</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>