<?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>1997 (4) TMI 157 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86680</link>
    <description>The doctrine of merger does not bar a departmental challenge where both parties have filed cross appeals against the same order. In such a situation, the earlier Tribunal order in the connected matter does not extinguish the department&#039;s right to contest the impugned order, and a preliminary objection on merger is untenable. The objection to maintainability was rejected in favour of the Revenue, and the matter was directed to proceed to hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2011 15:01:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123747" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (4) TMI 157 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86680</link>
      <description>The doctrine of merger does not bar a departmental challenge where both parties have filed cross appeals against the same order. In such a situation, the earlier Tribunal order in the connected matter does not extinguish the department&#039;s right to contest the impugned order, and a preliminary objection on merger is untenable. The objection to maintainability was rejected in favour of the Revenue, and the matter was directed to proceed to hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86680</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>