<?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 (10) TMI 334 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97430</link>
    <description>Rule 41 cannot ordinarily be used to quash show cause notices or compel immediate implementation of an earlier classification order where the Department has proceeded on a subsequent view of the tariff position. The Tribunal stated that res judicata does not strictly apply in fiscal matters and that, at the notice stage, the assessee may raise all objections before the adjudicating authority. It therefore refused to short-circuit the adjudicatory process and held the applications not maintainable. The Vice President dissented, holding that the prior final order remained binding until altered by a competent appellate forum and that the Department should continue to follow it absent any change in facts or law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:41:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134488" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (10) TMI 334 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97430</link>
      <description>Rule 41 cannot ordinarily be used to quash show cause notices or compel immediate implementation of an earlier classification order where the Department has proceeded on a subsequent view of the tariff position. The Tribunal stated that res judicata does not strictly apply in fiscal matters and that, at the notice stage, the assessee may raise all objections before the adjudicating authority. It therefore refused to short-circuit the adjudicatory process and held the applications not maintainable. The Vice President dissented, holding that the prior final order remained binding until altered by a competent appellate forum and that the Department should continue to follow it absent any change in facts or law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97430</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>