<?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>2005 (4) TMI 333 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115256</link>
    <description>An appeal concerning valuation of goods was wrongly clubbed with a common final order that dealt with separate job-work appeals. Because the valuation appeal arose from a distinct issue and the Revenue accepted the factual mistake, the tribunal corrected the error by allowing rectification, deleting that appeal from the common order, and directing it to be reheard separately.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 12:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152255" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 333 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115256</link>
      <description>An appeal concerning valuation of goods was wrongly clubbed with a common final order that dealt with separate job-work appeals. Because the valuation appeal arose from a distinct issue and the Revenue accepted the factual mistake, the tribunal corrected the error by allowing rectification, deleting that appeal from the common order, and directing it to be reheard separately.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115256</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>