Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2008 (9) TMI 672

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the Appellant. Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President]. -  The Revenue is aggrieved by the finding of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), that demand of duty on Polyester waste during the period December 1994 to Feb. 1995, is not sustainable in the absence of any allegation in the show cause notice that any waste ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....regards the finding in para 6 of the impugned order, it is because the assesees themselves admitted liability to duty on waste and submitted that they had cleared waste generated subsequent to March, 1995 on payment of duty, which fact was required to be verified, that the demand for the period March, 1995 to July, 1996 was sent back for verification of the submission of the assessees that waste c....