<?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>2000 (11) TMI 430 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95111</link>
    <description>Rectification was refused because the earlier Tribunal order was only an open remand to the jurisdictional Commissioner for fresh adjudication after hearing both sides. As the order had not decided the merits of capacity determination or duty liability, it contained no mistake apparent from the record capable of correction under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal therefore found no basis to disturb the remand order and left it undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 18:42:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132170" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 430 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95111</link>
      <description>Rectification was refused because the earlier Tribunal order was only an open remand to the jurisdictional Commissioner for fresh adjudication after hearing both sides. As the order had not decided the merits of capacity determination or duty liability, it contained no mistake apparent from the record capable of correction under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal therefore found no basis to disturb the remand order and left it undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95111</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>