<?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>2003 (1) TMI 447 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107262</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the Single Member Bench had jurisdiction to decide the exemption notification issue. The penalty imposed without a proposal in the show cause notice was set aside, and the final order was modified. The Tribunal clarified that rectification does not address debatable legal or factual matters, leading to the partial allowance of the rectification application.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 11:36:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144279" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 447 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107262</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the Single Member Bench had jurisdiction to decide the exemption notification issue. The penalty imposed without a proposal in the show cause notice was set aside, and the final order was modified. The Tribunal clarified that rectification does not address debatable legal or factual matters, leading to the partial allowance of the rectification application.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107262</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>