<?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 (9) TMI 547 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118831</link>
    <description>A legal issue not urged before the original authority may still be entertained by the Tribunal in first appeal, and the cited Supreme Court observations did not create a bar on raising such a point at that stage. Where the substantive merits had already been covered in favour of the appellant by earlier Tribunal orders, the demand was treated as not requiring pre-deposit for the appeal to proceed, and interim protection was granted by staying recovery until disposal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2012 11:45:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155828" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 547 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118831</link>
      <description>A legal issue not urged before the original authority may still be entertained by the Tribunal in first appeal, and the cited Supreme Court observations did not create a bar on raising such a point at that stage. Where the substantive merits had already been covered in favour of the appellant by earlier Tribunal orders, the demand was treated as not requiring pre-deposit for the appeal to proceed, and interim protection was granted by staying recovery until disposal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118831</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>