https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406708 The Madras High Court ruled in a case concerning a petitioner in the cement manufacturing industry's liability for ISD credit and GTA credit from January 2008 to October 2012. The court found that the petitioner had promptly responded to requests for information, but due to an error by the range officer, the adjudicating authority incorrectly held the petitioner liable for GTA credits. The judgment quashed the previous order and instructed a fresh decision with a personal hearing for the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of considering all materials submitted. The writ petition was allowed without costs. en-us Thu, 01 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Apr 2021 08:19:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406708 The Madras High Court ruled in a case concerning a petitioner in the cement manufacturing industry's liability for ISD credit and GTA credit from January 2008 to October 2012. The court found that the petitioner had promptly responded to requests for information, but due to an error by the range officer, the adjudicating authority incorrectly held the petitioner liable for GTA credits. The judgment quashed the previous order and instructed a fresh decision with a personal hearing for the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of considering all materials submitted. The writ petition was allowed without costs. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 01 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406708