<?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 (1) TMI 1436 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194649</link>
    <description>Incomplete cost data was furnished while finalising provisional assessment, but the adjudicating authority had the means and duty to call for full details and apply its mind at the relevant stage. In view of the long lapse of time and the facts on record, the Tribunal applied the principle in Nizam Sugar Factory and declined to interfere. The allegation of prejudice was therefore insufficient to warrant appellate relief, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 17 Sep 2017 19:54:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=489672" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 1436 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194649</link>
      <description>Incomplete cost data was furnished while finalising provisional assessment, but the adjudicating authority had the means and duty to call for full details and apply its mind at the relevant stage. In view of the long lapse of time and the facts on record, the Tribunal applied the principle in Nizam Sugar Factory and declined to interfere. The allegation of prejudice was therefore insufficient to warrant appellate relief, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194649</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>