<?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 (6) TMI 678 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344407</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appellant to contest the valuation issue and determined that Rule 6(b)(i) of the Valuation Rules was not applicable to the case. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2018 18:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=472388" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 678 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344407</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appellant to contest the valuation issue and determined that Rule 6(b)(i) of the Valuation Rules was not applicable to the case. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344407</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>