<?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 (12) TMI 513 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102686</link>
    <description>A communication that merely directed verification of documents to determine whether the incidence of duty had been passed on did not decide any substantive issue. Because the Commissioner (Appeals) had not adjudicated the refund claim through that letter, it could not be treated as an appealable order. On that basis, the Revenue&#039;s appeal was held not maintainable and dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:14:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139732" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (12) TMI 513 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102686</link>
      <description>A communication that merely directed verification of documents to determine whether the incidence of duty had been passed on did not decide any substantive issue. Because the Commissioner (Appeals) had not adjudicated the refund claim through that letter, it could not be treated as an appealable order. On that basis, the Revenue&#039;s appeal was held not maintainable and dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102686</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>