<?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 (11) TMI 1340 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335322</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for reevaluation. Both parties were directed to produce additional evidence for consideration. The adjudicating authority was tasked with examining the evidence to determine if the credit should be denied based on the authenticity of the inputs received by the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2021 15:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450022" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 1340 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335322</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for reevaluation. Both parties were directed to produce additional evidence for consideration. The adjudicating authority was tasked with examining the evidence to determine if the credit should be denied based on the authenticity of the inputs received by the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335322</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>