<?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 (8) TMI 214 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346156</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that duty cannot be demanded from M/s RIBL through M/s Triveni under Central Excise law. It was established that the show cause notice issued by the Additional Commissioner lacked jurisdiction over M/s RIBL. As a result, the demand for duty and the show cause notice were set aside due to lack of merit and jurisdiction, respectively. The Tribunal did not address the issue of limitation, ultimately allowing the appeals with any necessary relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Aug 2017 07:31:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=484594" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 214 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346156</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that duty cannot be demanded from M/s RIBL through M/s Triveni under Central Excise law. It was established that the show cause notice issued by the Additional Commissioner lacked jurisdiction over M/s RIBL. As a result, the demand for duty and the show cause notice were set aside due to lack of merit and jurisdiction, respectively. The Tribunal did not address the issue of limitation, ultimately allowing the appeals with any necessary relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346156</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>