<?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 (10) TMI 891 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349736</link>
    <description>Duty demand and penalties cannot be sustained when an adjudicating authority confirms liability on a ground not alleged in the show cause notice. The notice here alleged only failure to satisfy the exemption condition that manufacture should commence from the pulp stage in the factory, but the order accepted that contention and instead confirmed demand for lack of proof that the pulp contained at least 75% by weight of pulp made from specified materials. Confirming demand on an unnotified basis deprived the assessee of an opportunity to answer the allegation and amounted to travelling beyond the scope of the notice. The impugned order was therefore liable to be set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2017 08:15:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=493315" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 891 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349736</link>
      <description>Duty demand and penalties cannot be sustained when an adjudicating authority confirms liability on a ground not alleged in the show cause notice. The notice here alleged only failure to satisfy the exemption condition that manufacture should commence from the pulp stage in the factory, but the order accepted that contention and instead confirmed demand for lack of proof that the pulp contained at least 75% by weight of pulp made from specified materials. Confirming demand on an unnotified basis deprived the assessee of an opportunity to answer the allegation and amounted to travelling beyond the scope of the notice. The impugned order was therefore liable to be set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349736</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>