<?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>2015 (6) TMI 784 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260859</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order due to lack of evidence and proper reasoning, emphasizing the importance of clear findings based on evidence. The case highlighted the burden of proof on the Revenue regarding alleged violations, with the Tribunal criticizing the lack of supporting evidence for claims of non-maintenance of separate accounts. The matter was remitted back for a fresh adjudication order with proper evidentiary basis, stressing the necessity of judicial discipline in recording adjudication orders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=388438" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (6) TMI 784 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260859</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order due to lack of evidence and proper reasoning, emphasizing the importance of clear findings based on evidence. The case highlighted the burden of proof on the Revenue regarding alleged violations, with the Tribunal criticizing the lack of supporting evidence for claims of non-maintenance of separate accounts. The matter was remitted back for a fresh adjudication order with proper evidentiary basis, stressing the necessity of judicial discipline in recording adjudication orders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260859</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>