<?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 (2) TMI 766 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99457</link>
    <description>The classification dispute was remanded for fresh consideration because the issue was already pending before the Supreme Court in a connected appeal. The appellate authority found that no final determination was appropriate until the apex court decided the related classification question, so the order merely set aside the original adjudication and deferred reconsideration. The remand order was found proper, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:27:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136509" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 766 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99457</link>
      <description>The classification dispute was remanded for fresh consideration because the issue was already pending before the Supreme Court in a connected appeal. The appellate authority found that no final determination was appropriate until the apex court decided the related classification question, so the order merely set aside the original adjudication and deferred reconsideration. The remand order was found proper, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99457</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>