<?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 1392 - CESTAT, HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191777</link>
    <description>A co-noticee penalty and demand for alleged invoices issued without supply of goods could not survive once the Tribunal had already set aside the order in the main noticee&#039;s case on appreciation of evidence. With the foundational finding against the main noticee no longer standing, the basis for sustaining the co-noticee proceedings disappeared. The Tribunal therefore held the demand and penalty unsustainable, set aside the impugned order, and granted consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:07:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=466499" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 1392 - CESTAT, HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191777</link>
      <description>A co-noticee penalty and demand for alleged invoices issued without supply of goods could not survive once the Tribunal had already set aside the order in the main noticee&#039;s case on appreciation of evidence. With the foundational finding against the main noticee no longer standing, the basis for sustaining the co-noticee proceedings disappeared. The Tribunal therefore held the demand and penalty unsustainable, set aside the impugned order, and granted consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191777</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>