https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339061 The note addresses eligibility for Notification No. 275/88-C.E. for SG iron castings and spacer rings where proof-machining was disputed. It states that the remand was confined to an independent verification of whether proof-machining had been carried out on the identified goods, and that the adjudicating authority could not rely on the earlier personal hearing record after that material had already been challenged before the higher forum. On that factual basis, the goods were treated as not proof-machined and the notification benefit was held available to the assessee. en-us Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Feb 2017 12:03:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339061 The note addresses eligibility for Notification No. 275/88-C.E. for SG iron castings and spacer rings where proof-machining was disputed. It states that the remand was confined to an independent verification of whether proof-machining had been carried out on the identified goods, and that the adjudicating authority could not rely on the earlier personal hearing record after that material had already been challenged before the higher forum. On that factual basis, the goods were treated as not proof-machined and the notification benefit was held available to the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339061