<?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>2001 (4) TMI 488 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97812</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed, remanding the proceedings back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision in line with the observations made in the judgment. The order aimed to rectify the procedural errors and ensure a fair consideration of the classification issue based on legal principles.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:49:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134869" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (4) TMI 488 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97812</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed, remanding the proceedings back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision in line with the observations made in the judgment. The order aimed to rectify the procedural errors and ensure a fair consideration of the classification issue based on legal principles.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97812</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>