<?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>2001 (10) TMI 103 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46077</link>
    <description>Liability for central excise dues depends on the relevant assessment period and the correct licensee for that period. Where the appellant had surrendered the earlier licence and a fresh licence was issued to another textile unit, excise liability for the later period could not be fastened on the appellant and had to be examined against the fresh licensee after notice and factual enquiry. For the earlier period, liability was not finally determined and was left open for separate show cause notice and adjudication. The operative effect was that any fastening of excise liability required due process, proper notice, and findings of fact before liability could be imposed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:21:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84603" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (10) TMI 103 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46077</link>
      <description>Liability for central excise dues depends on the relevant assessment period and the correct licensee for that period. Where the appellant had surrendered the earlier licence and a fresh licence was issued to another textile unit, excise liability for the later period could not be fastened on the appellant and had to be examined against the fresh licensee after notice and factual enquiry. For the earlier period, liability was not finally determined and was left open for separate show cause notice and adjudication. The operative effect was that any fastening of excise liability required due process, proper notice, and findings of fact before liability could be imposed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46077</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>