<?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 (7) TMI 552 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97955</link>
    <description>The Tribunal clarified that the order referred to in paragraph 4 was the second order passed by the Collector, which was set aside. The first order, not communicated or appealed against, could not be dealt with by the Tribunal. The clarification provided was deemed sufficient.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 14 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:48:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135012" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 552 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97955</link>
      <description>The Tribunal clarified that the order referred to in paragraph 4 was the second order passed by the Collector, which was set aside. The first order, not communicated or appealed against, could not be dealt with by the Tribunal. The clarification provided was deemed sufficient.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 14 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97955</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>