<?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>2017 (5) TMI 180 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342442</link>
    <description>Alleged irregular availment and reversal of Modvat credit, together with linked refund claims, required fresh factual verification because the demand and penalty issues depended on the outcome of the refund proceedings and extensive private records. The Tribunal found that the record needed detailed scrutiny by the original authority, which was better placed to examine the documentation, consider rival contentions on suppression, limitation, interest and penalty, and allow additional evidence. The matter was therefore remanded for de novo consideration, beginning with the refund claims, and the assessee was permitted to adduce further material.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Jul 2017 16:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=467510" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 180 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342442</link>
      <description>Alleged irregular availment and reversal of Modvat credit, together with linked refund claims, required fresh factual verification because the demand and penalty issues depended on the outcome of the refund proceedings and extensive private records. The Tribunal found that the record needed detailed scrutiny by the original authority, which was better placed to examine the documentation, consider rival contentions on suppression, limitation, interest and penalty, and allow additional evidence. The matter was therefore remanded for de novo consideration, beginning with the refund claims, and the assessee was permitted to adduce further material.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342442</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>