<?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 (7) TMI 43 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344931</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority to decide jurisdiction post the Supreme Court decision, ensuring the appellant&#039;s right to be heard. The status quo was to be maintained until a final decision, ultimately allowing the appeals by the assessee through remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Jul 2017 10:05:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=478508" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 43 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344931</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority to decide jurisdiction post the Supreme Court decision, ensuring the appellant&#039;s right to be heard. The status quo was to be maintained until a final decision, ultimately allowing the appeals by the assessee through remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344931</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>