<?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>2013 (1) TMI 247 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220141</link>
    <description>The amended appellate power under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act was read as including authority to set aside an order and remand the matter for fresh adjudication, and the remand was therefore justified. Non-supply of seized but unrelied upon documents, despite repeated requests, was treated as a breach of natural justice because it impaired an effective defence, so the remand on that ground was also upheld. The appellate order of remand was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:05:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193510" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 247 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220141</link>
      <description>The amended appellate power under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act was read as including authority to set aside an order and remand the matter for fresh adjudication, and the remand was therefore justified. Non-supply of seized but unrelied upon documents, despite repeated requests, was treated as a breach of natural justice because it impaired an effective defence, so the remand on that ground was also upheld. The appellate order of remand was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220141</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>