<?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>2006 (12) TMI 380 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120886</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming time-barred demands without considering the jurisdictional issues of the Show Cause Notice, as per the Apex Court judgment in Nizam Sugars. The Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for judicial indiscipline in disregarding legal precedents. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:57:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157880" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (12) TMI 380 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120886</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming time-barred demands without considering the jurisdictional issues of the Show Cause Notice, as per the Apex Court judgment in Nizam Sugars. The Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for judicial indiscipline in disregarding legal precedents. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120886</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>