<?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>2018 (2) TMI 708 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355287</link>
    <description>The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the original authority for fresh adjudication because a connected matter on similar facts had already been remanded, and consistency required the same course. The original authority was directed to grant an opportunity of hearing and allow fresh evidence, if required, in accordance with law. The result is reconsideration of the dispute at the original stage rather than final determination on the existing record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Feb 2018 17:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508709" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 708 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355287</link>
      <description>The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the original authority for fresh adjudication because a connected matter on similar facts had already been remanded, and consistency required the same course. The original authority was directed to grant an opportunity of hearing and allow fresh evidence, if required, in accordance with law. The result is reconsideration of the dispute at the original stage rather than final determination on the existing record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355287</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>