<?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 905 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100592</link>
    <description>The Revenue&#039;s challenge to the original adjudication was no longer maintainable after that order had already been carried in appeal and merged with the Tribunal&#039;s earlier final order in connected proceedings. The merger doctrine meant the original order ceased to survive as a separate subject of challenge, so the departmental appeal could not be pursued independently. The appeal was therefore held not to survive and was disposed of.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:03:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137643" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 905 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100592</link>
      <description>The Revenue&#039;s challenge to the original adjudication was no longer maintainable after that order had already been carried in appeal and merged with the Tribunal&#039;s earlier final order in connected proceedings. The merger doctrine meant the original order ceased to survive as a separate subject of challenge, so the departmental appeal could not be pursued independently. The appeal was therefore held not to survive and was disposed of.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100592</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>