<?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>2016 (6) TMI 915 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329206</link>
    <description>A rectification application does not survive where the substantive exemption dispute has already been finally decided in favour of the assessee and no independent error apparent on the face of the record remains. With the principal controversy over eligibility for the exemption notifications settled by the Supreme Court, the alternative grounds raised for rectification lost practical relevance. The application was therefore treated as infructuous and not fit for consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2016 17:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432795" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 915 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329206</link>
      <description>A rectification application does not survive where the substantive exemption dispute has already been finally decided in favour of the assessee and no independent error apparent on the face of the record remains. With the principal controversy over eligibility for the exemption notifications settled by the Supreme Court, the alternative grounds raised for rectification lost practical relevance. The application was therefore treated as infructuous and not fit for consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329206</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>