<?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 989 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329280</link>
    <description>The Tribunal concluded that the corrigendum altering the basis of the Show Cause Notice was impermissible. It held that Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applied for demanding duty on DTA clearances, dismissing conflicting case laws. The Tribunal found errors highlighted by the Revenue did not qualify as rectifiable mistakes under Section 35C(2) of the Act. Emphasizing limitations on rectification power, it dismissed the application, stating rectification should address obvious mistakes, not debatable points. The Tribunal&#039;s decision highlighted thorough consideration of facts and legal principles in determining appellant eligibility and rectification of mistakes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2016 07:34:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432946" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 989 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329280</link>
      <description>The Tribunal concluded that the corrigendum altering the basis of the Show Cause Notice was impermissible. It held that Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applied for demanding duty on DTA clearances, dismissing conflicting case laws. The Tribunal found errors highlighted by the Revenue did not qualify as rectifiable mistakes under Section 35C(2) of the Act. Emphasizing limitations on rectification power, it dismissed the application, stating rectification should address obvious mistakes, not debatable points. The Tribunal&#039;s decision highlighted thorough consideration of facts and legal principles in determining appellant eligibility and rectification of mistakes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329280</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>