<?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>2009 (12) TMI 1008 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196125</link>
    <description>Allegations involving non-existent suppliers required verification of the affidavits and letters relied on by the assessee, including whether they were issued by the same persons said to be non-existent. Because the factual position needed fresh examination and related proceedings had already been initiated against the suppliers, the dispute was sent back for re-adjudication by the original authority after granting an opportunity of hearing. The pre-deposit requirement was waived pending that fresh decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:39:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=496817" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 1008 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196125</link>
      <description>Allegations involving non-existent suppliers required verification of the affidavits and letters relied on by the assessee, including whether they were issued by the same persons said to be non-existent. Because the factual position needed fresh examination and related proceedings had already been initiated against the suppliers, the dispute was sent back for re-adjudication by the original authority after granting an opportunity of hearing. The pre-deposit requirement was waived pending that fresh decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196125</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>