<?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 (8) TMI 777 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100405</link>
    <description>Deemed withdrawal under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme operated from the passing of the order under Section 90(2) of the Finance Act, 1998, not from the later stage of certificate issuance. Because no statutory order and certificate had been issued, the earlier appeal withdrawal was not ineffective or provisional in a way that allowed restoration. The Tribunal therefore rejected the restoration request and the appeal remained withdrawn.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:28:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137456" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 777 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100405</link>
      <description>Deemed withdrawal under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme operated from the passing of the order under Section 90(2) of the Finance Act, 1998, not from the later stage of certificate issuance. Because no statutory order and certificate had been issued, the earlier appeal withdrawal was not ineffective or provisional in a way that allowed restoration. The Tribunal therefore rejected the restoration request and the appeal remained withdrawn.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100405</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>