https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43764 The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal at Madras to hear the petitioner's appeal within three months. The judgment clarified that the dispute revolved around the factual determination of whether the petitioner fulfilled the conditions for concessional excise duty, emphasizing that this factual issue did not necessitate interpretation of the notification. The decision highlighted the distinction between factual inquiries and legal interpretations, underscoring that factual determinations fell within the purview of the Regional Tribunal, not the Special Tribunal designated for legal and interpretative matters. en-us Fri, 21 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Jun 2010 18:29:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43764 The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal at Madras to hear the petitioner's appeal within three months. The judgment clarified that the dispute revolved around the factual determination of whether the petitioner fulfilled the conditions for concessional excise duty, emphasizing that this factual issue did not necessitate interpretation of the notification. The decision highlighted the distinction between factual inquiries and legal interpretations, underscoring that factual determinations fell within the purview of the Regional Tribunal, not the Special Tribunal designated for legal and interpretative matters. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 21 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43764