<?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>1990 (10) TMI 222 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82112</link>
    <description>A question of law not raised before the Tribunal and not decided in its order cannot be introduced for the first time in reference proceedings. The reference jurisdiction cannot be used to fill omissions in the adjudication record or to rely on provisions never pleaded or considered earlier. Applying that principle, the reference application was held not maintainable and was rejected because the import policy and Import (Control) Order points had not been canvassed before the Tribunal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Jul 2011 10:34:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119257" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (10) TMI 222 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82112</link>
      <description>A question of law not raised before the Tribunal and not decided in its order cannot be introduced for the first time in reference proceedings. The reference jurisdiction cannot be used to fill omissions in the adjudication record or to rely on provisions never pleaded or considered earlier. Applying that principle, the reference application was held not maintainable and was rejected because the import policy and Import (Control) Order points had not been canvassed before the Tribunal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82112</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>