<?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 (9) TMI 501 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347744</link>
    <description>A party may raise a new legal ground before the appellate forum where the relevant facts are already on record, and the rule on production of additional evidence does not bar consideration of such a ground. The Tribunal held that admissibility of Cenvat credit on the services in question could be examined on merits, and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision on that issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2017 14:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=488791" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 501 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347744</link>
      <description>A party may raise a new legal ground before the appellate forum where the relevant facts are already on record, and the rule on production of additional evidence does not bar consideration of such a ground. The Tribunal held that admissibility of Cenvat credit on the services in question could be examined on merits, and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision on that issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347744</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>