<?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 (11) TMI 134 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50881</link>
    <description>Uncorroborated statements and material collected behind the assessee&#039;s back could not sustain findings of clandestine manufacture, removal, valuation, or denial of exemption. Several witnesses were unavailable for cross-examination, and others did not support the department&#039;s version, weakening the evidentiary basis. The adjudicating authority also relied on verified invoices and related records without giving the assessee an opportunity to meet that material, which violated natural justice. The impugned order confirming duty and penalties was therefore set aside, and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication on a fresh appraisal of the evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:34:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89360" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (11) TMI 134 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50881</link>
      <description>Uncorroborated statements and material collected behind the assessee&#039;s back could not sustain findings of clandestine manufacture, removal, valuation, or denial of exemption. Several witnesses were unavailable for cross-examination, and others did not support the department&#039;s version, weakening the evidentiary basis. The adjudicating authority also relied on verified invoices and related records without giving the assessee an opportunity to meet that material, which violated natural justice. The impugned order confirming duty and penalties was therefore set aside, and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication on a fresh appraisal of the evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50881</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>