<?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 (11) TMI 219 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369876</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the rejection of a refund claim for Excise Duty, emphasizing the importance of following directions and ensuring consistency in decision-making processes. The Tribunal criticized the Revenue for changing its stance and issuing a second Show Cause Notice without proper justification. It ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting the need for adherence to legal principles and procedural fairness, stating that the constitutional validity of the excess amount paid should be determined by higher courts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2018 11:26:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=540740" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 219 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369876</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the rejection of a refund claim for Excise Duty, emphasizing the importance of following directions and ensuring consistency in decision-making processes. The Tribunal criticized the Revenue for changing its stance and issuing a second Show Cause Notice without proper justification. It ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting the need for adherence to legal principles and procedural fairness, stating that the constitutional validity of the excess amount paid should be determined by higher courts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369876</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>