<?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 (7) TMI 146 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261185</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of allowing cross-examination of witnesses and not relying on evidence not disclosed in the Show Cause Notice, in accordance with Section 9D(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal and stay application were disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2015 16:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=389314" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (7) TMI 146 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261185</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of allowing cross-examination of witnesses and not relying on evidence not disclosed in the Show Cause Notice, in accordance with Section 9D(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal and stay application were disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261185</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>