<?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>2007 (6) TMI 371 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121901</link>
    <description>Two appeals are required where two adjudication orders are challenged, even if they are merged in one Order-in-Appeal. The Tribunal distinguished authorities dealing with the number of appeals by reference to show-cause notices and applied the Larger Bench principle that the count of appeals depends on the number of adjudicating orders, not on the appellate disposal format. On that basis, the defect memo demanding additional court fee was held to be in law, and the request for refund of the extra court fee was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Aug 2012 11:02:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=158893" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (6) TMI 371 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121901</link>
      <description>Two appeals are required where two adjudication orders are challenged, even if they are merged in one Order-in-Appeal. The Tribunal distinguished authorities dealing with the number of appeals by reference to show-cause notices and applied the Larger Bench principle that the count of appeals depends on the number of adjudicating orders, not on the appellate disposal format. On that basis, the defect memo demanding additional court fee was held to be in law, and the request for refund of the extra court fee was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121901</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>