<?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>2009 (7) TMI 975 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126532</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a detailed review. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the appeal on its merits without mandating the deposit of the demanded amount and to address all contentions raised by the appellant, particularly regarding alleged discriminatory treatment. The Tribunal emphasized the need for an independent determination by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the discrimination issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2012 17:57:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163425" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 975 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126532</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a detailed review. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the appeal on its merits without mandating the deposit of the demanded amount and to address all contentions raised by the appellant, particularly regarding alleged discriminatory treatment. The Tribunal emphasized the need for an independent determination by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the discrimination issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126532</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>