<?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 406 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345294</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proceedings were time-barred due to the department&#039;s delay in issuing a Show Cause Notice. Additionally, the deductions claimed by the appellant for software costs were deemed justified based on previous adjudications involving the same appellant. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of consistency in departmental stance on similar issues and granted consequential relief to the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2017 07:26:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=480997" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 406 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345294</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proceedings were time-barred due to the department&#039;s delay in issuing a Show Cause Notice. Additionally, the deductions claimed by the appellant for software costs were deemed justified based on previous adjudications involving the same appellant. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of consistency in departmental stance on similar issues and granted consequential relief to the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345294</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>