<?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>2012 (9) TMI 101 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216285</link>
    <description>The Tribunal may permit fresh oral and documentary evidence and remand the matter where the lower authorities have not afforded a reasonable opportunity to present material and fair adjudication would otherwise be defeated. It noted that Rule 5 of the Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001 restricts additional evidence before the Commissioner (Appeals), but Rule 23 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules allows further evidence for sufficient cause or in the interests of justice. On the facts, the dispute was treated as requiring proper examination of the merits, and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication after giving the appellant an opportunity to adduce evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2012 17:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=189668" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 101 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216285</link>
      <description>The Tribunal may permit fresh oral and documentary evidence and remand the matter where the lower authorities have not afforded a reasonable opportunity to present material and fair adjudication would otherwise be defeated. It noted that Rule 5 of the Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001 restricts additional evidence before the Commissioner (Appeals), but Rule 23 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules allows further evidence for sufficient cause or in the interests of justice. On the facts, the dispute was treated as requiring proper examination of the merits, and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication after giving the appellant an opportunity to adduce evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216285</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>