<?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 (5) TMI 417 - CESTAT,  AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207858</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit disputed on invoices alleged to have been issued by bogus or non-existent manufacturers was not finally decided on merits; following an earlier Tribunal ruling involving similarly placed assessees, the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for de novo consideration in light of those observations. The impugned order was set aside, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, and the stay petition was also allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2011 01:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181332" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (5) TMI 417 - CESTAT,  AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207858</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit disputed on invoices alleged to have been issued by bogus or non-existent manufacturers was not finally decided on merits; following an earlier Tribunal ruling involving similarly placed assessees, the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for de novo consideration in light of those observations. The impugned order was set aside, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, and the stay petition was also allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207858</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>