<?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 (5) TMI 276 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107527</link>
    <description>Rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is confined to the order sought to be rectified and is not maintainable against an order outside that provision. A Tribunal may also recall an ex parte final order where the parties were not heard and the record does not show that an adjournment request was considered. On these facts, the Revenue&#039;s challenge to the recall order failed and the recall remained in force.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:07:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144544" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 276 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107527</link>
      <description>Rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is confined to the order sought to be rectified and is not maintainable against an order outside that provision. A Tribunal may also recall an ex parte final order where the parties were not heard and the record does not show that an adjournment request was considered. On these facts, the Revenue&#039;s challenge to the recall order failed and the recall remained in force.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107527</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>