<?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 1393 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191835</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant in a dispute over the quantum of abatement on sales tax under Section 4(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order, set it aside, and ruled in favor of the appellant based on the evidence presented, including discrepancies in the show cause notice and the correct availing of abatement by the appellant. The judgment was pronounced by the Technical Member of the Tribunal on 16.11.2016.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2017 11:21:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=466847" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 1393 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191835</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant in a dispute over the quantum of abatement on sales tax under Section 4(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order, set it aside, and ruled in favor of the appellant based on the evidence presented, including discrepancies in the show cause notice and the correct availing of abatement by the appellant. The judgment was pronounced by the Technical Member of the Tribunal on 16.11.2016.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191835</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>