<?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 (7) TMI 360 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107647</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appellant to introduce additional grounds at the appellate stage, distinguishing the case from precedents concerning new pleas. Emphasizing the distinction between questions of fact and law, the Tribunal permitted the appellant to raise a question of law for the first time during the appeal. The appellant&#039;s argument prevailed, and they were directed to amend the forms for the final hearing on a specified date.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:53:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144664" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 360 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107647</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appellant to introduce additional grounds at the appellate stage, distinguishing the case from precedents concerning new pleas. Emphasizing the distinction between questions of fact and law, the Tribunal permitted the appellant to raise a question of law for the first time during the appeal. The appellant&#039;s argument prevailed, and they were directed to amend the forms for the final hearing on a specified date.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107647</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>