<?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 (8) TMI 903 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365431</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal remanded the case back to the First Appellate Authority to determine if the appellant had communicated the option to the department as required by the rules. The tribunal emphasized the importance of a fair hearing and adherence to the rules in reaching a decision, allowing the appeal by way of remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2018 09:24:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=530982" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 903 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365431</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal remanded the case back to the First Appellate Authority to determine if the appellant had communicated the option to the department as required by the rules. The tribunal emphasized the importance of a fair hearing and adherence to the rules in reaching a decision, allowing the appeal by way of remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365431</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>