<?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 (12) TMI 5 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371236</link>
    <description>The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the CESTAT orders and remitting the matter back for a fresh decision. The judgment emphasized the appellant&#039;s right to a fair hearing and the importance of considering all factual aspects, particularly regarding the determination of the place of removal for valuation purposes. The decision highlighted the need for a reasonable opportunity for parties to present their case effectively before the tribunal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2019 14:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=544934" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 5 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371236</link>
      <description>The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the CESTAT orders and remitting the matter back for a fresh decision. The judgment emphasized the appellant&#039;s right to a fair hearing and the importance of considering all factual aspects, particularly regarding the determination of the place of removal for valuation purposes. The decision highlighted the need for a reasonable opportunity for parties to present their case effectively before the tribunal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371236</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>