<?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 (9) TMI 31 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331770</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the record was incomplete and a conclusive decision could not be reached on the limited documents available, so the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication. It directed the adjudicating authority to consider the additional evidence to be produced by the appellant and decide the dispute afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing, in line with the earlier High Court remand and principles of fairness.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2016 16:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=439766" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 31 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331770</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the record was incomplete and a conclusive decision could not be reached on the limited documents available, so the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication. It directed the adjudicating authority to consider the additional evidence to be produced by the appellant and decide the dispute afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing, in line with the earlier High Court remand and principles of fairness.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331770</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>