https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46127 The High Court of Judicature at Madras allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order rejecting the request for excise duty declaration. The court emphasized the importance of providing the petitioner with an opportunity to explain discrepancies in the furnace type before passing such orders. It highlighted the procedural lapse in not allowing the petitioner to respond to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner's report, underscoring the right to challenge findings affecting tax liability. The court directed the respondents to provide the petitioner with the report, seek an explanation, and then make appropriate decisions, stressing procedural fairness and the petitioner's rights. en-us Tue, 04 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:58:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46127 The High Court of Judicature at Madras allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order rejecting the request for excise duty declaration. The court emphasized the importance of providing the petitioner with an opportunity to explain discrepancies in the furnace type before passing such orders. It highlighted the procedural lapse in not allowing the petitioner to respond to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner's report, underscoring the right to challenge findings affecting tax liability. The court directed the respondents to provide the petitioner with the report, seek an explanation, and then make appropriate decisions, stressing procedural fairness and the petitioner's rights. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 04 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46127