<?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>1998 (9) TMI 231 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89851</link>
    <description>A reference application under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act was not maintainable where no specific question of law was framed from the Tribunal&#039;s order. The Tribunal had merely followed binding law declared by the High Court, and a subordinate tribunal cannot be faulted for applying prevailing precedent. On that basis, the Revenue had no valid ground to seek a reference, and the application was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:20:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126913" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (9) TMI 231 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89851</link>
      <description>A reference application under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act was not maintainable where no specific question of law was framed from the Tribunal&#039;s order. The Tribunal had merely followed binding law declared by the High Court, and a subordinate tribunal cannot be faulted for applying prevailing precedent. On that basis, the Revenue had no valid ground to seek a reference, and the application was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89851</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>