<?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>2000 (8) TMI 1136 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289257</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner of Central Excise&#039;s order confirming duty demand and penalties on M/s. Mac Designers and M/s. Mac Venetian. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner failed to conduct an independent inquiry into the actual production and sale of furniture by the appellants, leading to an unsustainable decision. The case was remanded for a fresh decision, allowing the appellants to present their case fully before the adjudicating authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2020 17:54:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=618147" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 1136 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289257</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner of Central Excise&#039;s order confirming duty demand and penalties on M/s. Mac Designers and M/s. Mac Venetian. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner failed to conduct an independent inquiry into the actual production and sale of furniture by the appellants, leading to an unsustainable decision. The case was remanded for a fresh decision, allowing the appellants to present their case fully before the adjudicating authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289257</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>