<?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 (4) TMI 341 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107508</link>
    <description>Where two adjudication orders arose from the same show cause notice, the Commissioner (Appeals) could not sustain a later demand after an earlier adjudication had already dropped the demand and the Revenue had not appealed that order. Once the earlier order attained finality, the subsequent order confirming the demand had no legal foundation, because the first order continued to govern the dispute. The appellate order was therefore unsupported in law and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2012 11:09:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144525" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (4) TMI 341 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107508</link>
      <description>Where two adjudication orders arose from the same show cause notice, the Commissioner (Appeals) could not sustain a later demand after an earlier adjudication had already dropped the demand and the Revenue had not appealed that order. Once the earlier order attained finality, the subsequent order confirming the demand had no legal foundation, because the first order continued to govern the dispute. The appellate order was therefore unsupported in law and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107508</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>