<?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 (8) TMI 294 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330910</link>
    <description>A cryptic appellate order that fails to address material grounds, including the effect of retrospective and prospective amendments to an exemption notification and the Foreign Trade Policy, warrants remand for fresh consideration. The order also did not deal with the pleaded distinction concerning duty-paid indigenous inputs or the record supporting the appellant&#039;s CENVAT Credit claim. As the relevant amendments and substantive objections were left unexamined, the merits of credit entitlement were not finally decided and were kept open for reconsideration by the appellate authority after hearing the appellant. The appellate order was therefore set aside and the dispute remanded for de novo adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2016 16:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=437658" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 294 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330910</link>
      <description>A cryptic appellate order that fails to address material grounds, including the effect of retrospective and prospective amendments to an exemption notification and the Foreign Trade Policy, warrants remand for fresh consideration. The order also did not deal with the pleaded distinction concerning duty-paid indigenous inputs or the record supporting the appellant&#039;s CENVAT Credit claim. As the relevant amendments and substantive objections were left unexamined, the merits of credit entitlement were not finally decided and were kept open for reconsideration by the appellate authority after hearing the appellant. The appellate order was therefore set aside and the dispute remanded for de novo adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330910</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>