<?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>2011 (4) TMI 272 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205024</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) had the authority to decide on the correctness of the original order based on available records without the need for verification. The remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) was found not sustainable and was set aside, remanding the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision based on existing records at his level, allowing for clarification or verification if necessary from Divisional or Range officers.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2011 17:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=178549" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 272 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205024</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) had the authority to decide on the correctness of the original order based on available records without the need for verification. The remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) was found not sustainable and was set aside, remanding the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision based on existing records at his level, allowing for clarification or verification if necessary from Divisional or Range officers.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205024</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>