https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771640 CESTAT Chennai rejected appellant's contentions and cross objections, ruling that Sections 84 and 85 of the Act did not empower filing such cross objections. However, following precedent from Eveready Industries India Ltd v CCE, Meerut, where similar circumstances resulted in remand, the Tribunal adopted identical approach. Matter was remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) to consider cross-objections on merits while adhering to natural justice principles. Appeal allowed by way of remand. en-us Wed, 07 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 May 2025 08:41:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771640 CESTAT Chennai rejected appellant's contentions and cross objections, ruling that Sections 84 and 85 of the Act did not empower filing such cross objections. However, following precedent from Eveready Industries India Ltd v CCE, Meerut, where similar circumstances resulted in remand, the Tribunal adopted identical approach. Matter was remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) to consider cross-objections on merits while adhering to natural justice principles. Appeal allowed by way of remand. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 07 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771640