<?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 401 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121934</link>
    <description>Doctrine of merger prevents review or appeal against an adjudication order once it has been carried in appeal and replaced by an earlier appellate order setting aside the demand. The adjudication order then ceases to exist independently, leaving no subsisting order capable of departmental review or appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the department&#039;s appeal was not maintainable, and the order confirming duty and penalty could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Aug 2012 12:57:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=158926" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (6) TMI 401 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121934</link>
      <description>Doctrine of merger prevents review or appeal against an adjudication order once it has been carried in appeal and replaced by an earlier appellate order setting aside the demand. The adjudication order then ceases to exist independently, leaving no subsisting order capable of departmental review or appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the department&#039;s appeal was not maintainable, and the order confirming duty and penalty could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121934</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>