<?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>2019 (2) TMI 1483 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375856</link>
    <description>A remand requiring independent reconsideration of a factual issue obliges the adjudicating authority to record a fresh finding on that issue and not to rely on findings from an earlier order already set aside. Here, the remand specifically required a fresh examination of power consumption, which was central to the clandestine removal allegation, but the authority instead adopted the earlier set of findings without independent reappraisal. In those circumstances, no adverse finding could validly be sustained against the assessee, and selective confirmation of demand was also found unsustainable. The demand and penalties were therefore not maintainable, and the Revenue&#039;s appeals failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2019 06:56:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=560137" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (2) TMI 1483 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375856</link>
      <description>A remand requiring independent reconsideration of a factual issue obliges the adjudicating authority to record a fresh finding on that issue and not to rely on findings from an earlier order already set aside. Here, the remand specifically required a fresh examination of power consumption, which was central to the clandestine removal allegation, but the authority instead adopted the earlier set of findings without independent reappraisal. In those circumstances, no adverse finding could validly be sustained against the assessee, and selective confirmation of demand was also found unsustainable. The demand and penalties were therefore not maintainable, and the Revenue&#039;s appeals failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375856</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>