<?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 (12) TMI 332 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335687</link>
    <description>The Member (Judicial) upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; decision in a case involving the appropriation of rebate against a confirmed demand under section 11 of CEA, 1944. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as the appropriation of the rebate against the demand, which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), was deemed invalid. The Respondents were granted consequential relief based on the impugned order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2016 13:18:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450827" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 332 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335687</link>
      <description>The Member (Judicial) upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; decision in a case involving the appropriation of rebate against a confirmed demand under section 11 of CEA, 1944. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as the appropriation of the rebate against the demand, which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), was deemed invalid. The Respondents were granted consequential relief based on the impugned order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335687</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>