<?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>2014 (2) TMI 1053 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244459</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned order that denied cenvat credit to the appellant. The Tribunal found that the adjudication order violated principles of natural justice by hastily passing judgment without considering the appellant&#039;s submissions. The matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and allowing the appellant to present evidence during the denovo proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Feb 2014 06:31:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347278" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 1053 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244459</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned order that denied cenvat credit to the appellant. The Tribunal found that the adjudication order violated principles of natural justice by hastily passing judgment without considering the appellant&#039;s submissions. The matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and allowing the appellant to present evidence during the denovo proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244459</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>