<?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 (6) TMI 787 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105156</link>
    <description>A reference application under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act did not survive after the Department filed a review/recall (ROM) application and waived its right to press the reference. The Tribunal treated that conduct as abandonment of the reference remedy, and the later dismissal of the ROM application did not revive it. On that basis, the reference application was dismissed as infructuous.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:08:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142195" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 787 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105156</link>
      <description>A reference application under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act did not survive after the Department filed a review/recall (ROM) application and waived its right to press the reference. The Tribunal treated that conduct as abandonment of the reference remedy, and the later dismissal of the ROM application did not revive it. On that basis, the reference application was dismissed as infructuous.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105156</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>