<?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 (9) TMI 484 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105001</link>
    <description>Compliance by an Assistant Commissioner with a Tribunal refund order did not amount to an independent adjudication under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Because the refund was only implementation of the Tribunal&#039;s final direction and did not determine rights or liabilities afresh, it could not be treated as an adjudication order subject to review. The refund order was therefore held not to be an adjudication order, and the appeals were allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2012 11:31:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142040" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (9) TMI 484 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105001</link>
      <description>Compliance by an Assistant Commissioner with a Tribunal refund order did not amount to an independent adjudication under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Because the refund was only implementation of the Tribunal&#039;s final direction and did not determine rights or liabilities afresh, it could not be treated as an adjudication order subject to review. The refund order was therefore held not to be an adjudication order, and the appeals were allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105001</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>