<?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>2006 (12) TMI 328 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120582</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the denial of credit and penalty imposition. It emphasized aligning allegations in the show cause notice with grounds for decision for procedural fairness and legal validity in tax disputes. The Commissioner (Appeals) decision was reversed due to exceeding the notice&#039;s scope, as it did not specifically allege disposal of inputs to third parties without duty payment or credit reversal, rendering the demand unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Jul 2012 13:26:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157577" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (12) TMI 328 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120582</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the denial of credit and penalty imposition. It emphasized aligning allegations in the show cause notice with grounds for decision for procedural fairness and legal validity in tax disputes. The Commissioner (Appeals) decision was reversed due to exceeding the notice&#039;s scope, as it did not specifically allege disposal of inputs to third parties without duty payment or credit reversal, rendering the demand unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120582</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>