<?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>2010 (1) TMI 594 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201624</link>
    <description>Where the Tribunal decided the dispute solely on a Larger Bench view, the later emergence of a contrary High Court view required reconsideration of the matter. As the respondent did not dispute that the contrary position had been brought to notice, the Tribunal&#039;s order could not stand on the earlier view alone. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in light of the later judicial view.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Feb 2011 11:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175228" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 594 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201624</link>
      <description>Where the Tribunal decided the dispute solely on a Larger Bench view, the later emergence of a contrary High Court view required reconsideration of the matter. As the respondent did not dispute that the contrary position had been brought to notice, the Tribunal&#039;s order could not stand on the earlier view alone. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in light of the later judicial view.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201624</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>