<?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 (3) TMI 1166 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190412</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that adjusting the refund claim against pending show cause notices was not valid. It emphasized that without adjudication of the amount in dispute, there was no confirmed demand against the appellant. The Tribunal found the Commissioner erred in adjusting the amount without a settled dispute, noting the High Court&#039;s interim order was irrelevant. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal allowed with any necessary relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2017 18:14:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=458600" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 1166 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190412</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that adjusting the refund claim against pending show cause notices was not valid. It emphasized that without adjudication of the amount in dispute, there was no confirmed demand against the appellant. The Tribunal found the Commissioner erred in adjusting the amount without a settled dispute, noting the High Court&#039;s interim order was irrelevant. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal allowed with any necessary relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190412</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>