<?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>2002 (5) TMI 813 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109160</link>
    <description>Recovery proceedings based on a fresh show cause notice for the same excise duty refund were unsustainable once the refund had been sanctioned on a final finding that the duty incidence had not been passed on, and the Supreme Court had dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal against that finding. The Department could not reopen or relitigate an issue that had attained finality through the earlier order and Supreme Court dismissal. The impugned recovery order was therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 12:44:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146177" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 813 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109160</link>
      <description>Recovery proceedings based on a fresh show cause notice for the same excise duty refund were unsustainable once the refund had been sanctioned on a final finding that the duty incidence had not been passed on, and the Supreme Court had dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal against that finding. The Department could not reopen or relitigate an issue that had attained finality through the earlier order and Supreme Court dismissal. The impugned recovery order was therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109160</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>