<?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>2000 (10) TMI 920 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107067</link>
    <description>A dictated order is not ordinarily subject to recall or rehearing unless extraordinary grounds are shown. The department&#039;s request was rejected because it had prior notice of the statement said to be crucial, had adequate opportunity to address it at the hearing, and did not seek an adjournment when the matter was fully argued. The application was treated as an attempt to exploit delay in the signing of the order to obtain a second hearing, and it was held not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:30:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144086" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (10) TMI 920 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107067</link>
      <description>A dictated order is not ordinarily subject to recall or rehearing unless extraordinary grounds are shown. The department&#039;s request was rejected because it had prior notice of the statement said to be crucial, had adequate opportunity to address it at the hearing, and did not seek an adjournment when the matter was fully argued. The application was treated as an attempt to exploit delay in the signing of the order to obtain a second hearing, and it was held not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107067</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>