<?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 191 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87142</link>
    <description>The Tribunal did not finally decide the application on merits. It identified two questions of law, directed circulation of the draft statement of reference to both sides, and fixed the matter for finalisation before the Bench. The operative effect was procedural: the reference process was advanced for further consideration rather than concluded with a substantive determination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 11:06:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124209" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (4) TMI 191 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87142</link>
      <description>The Tribunal did not finally decide the application on merits. It identified two questions of law, directed circulation of the draft statement of reference to both sides, and fixed the matter for finalisation before the Bench. The operative effect was procedural: the reference process was advanced for further consideration rather than concluded with a substantive determination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87142</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>