<?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>2004 (3) TMI 450 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110973</link>
    <description>Duty demand proceedings were remanded for fresh adjudication because the assessee was not supplied with the debit notes said to support the allegation of extra consideration. The assessee also raised a limitation objection regarding the credit demand. To ensure a fair opportunity to meet the department&#039;s case, the matter was sent back with directions to furnish copies of the debit notes and to hear the assessee afresh on the issues raised. The impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:16:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147989" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 450 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110973</link>
      <description>Duty demand proceedings were remanded for fresh adjudication because the assessee was not supplied with the debit notes said to support the allegation of extra consideration. The assessee also raised a limitation objection regarding the credit demand. To ensure a fair opportunity to meet the department&#039;s case, the matter was sent back with directions to furnish copies of the debit notes and to hear the assessee afresh on the issues raised. The impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110973</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>