<?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 (8) TMI 426 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109978</link>
    <description>A miscellaneous application seeking a fresh order on penalty was rejected because it proceeded on a misreading of the Tribunal&#039;s earlier order. The earlier order had simply set aside the personal penalty imposed on the respondents and did not refer to any rule or leave a surviving penalty issue for further adjudication. Since the record showed that relief had already been granted against the penalty upheld by the lower appellate authority, the application disclosed no continuing controversy requiring a new decision. The Tribunal therefore treated the request as unnecessary and infructuous and declined further relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:39:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146994" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (8) TMI 426 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109978</link>
      <description>A miscellaneous application seeking a fresh order on penalty was rejected because it proceeded on a misreading of the Tribunal&#039;s earlier order. The earlier order had simply set aside the personal penalty imposed on the respondents and did not refer to any rule or leave a surviving penalty issue for further adjudication. Since the record showed that relief had already been granted against the penalty upheld by the lower appellate authority, the application disclosed no continuing controversy requiring a new decision. The Tribunal therefore treated the request as unnecessary and infructuous and declined further relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109978</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>