<?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>2002 (1) TMI 586 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101162</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appellants&#039; abatement claims, except for one period, as they had sent intimation to the required authorities, including the Superintendent, as per the Rules. The Commissioner&#039;s doubts on receipt were unfounded, and no other valid reasons for disallowance were presented. The impugned order was overturned, and the appeal was granted with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:45:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138212" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (1) TMI 586 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101162</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appellants&#039; abatement claims, except for one period, as they had sent intimation to the required authorities, including the Superintendent, as per the Rules. The Commissioner&#039;s doubts on receipt were unfounded, and no other valid reasons for disallowance were presented. The impugned order was overturned, and the appeal was granted with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101162</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>