<?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 (12) TMI 443 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204399</link>
    <description>An issue resolved by an earlier appellate order that was not challenged and had attained finality cannot be reopened indirectly in later proceedings. The adjudicating authority and Tribunal were bound to follow the earlier direction allowing adjustment of duty liability, and the revenue could not dispute that adjustment in a second round of litigation. On that basis, the proposed questions did not survive as substantial questions of law, and the dispute remained decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2011 17:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=177935" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 443 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204399</link>
      <description>An issue resolved by an earlier appellate order that was not challenged and had attained finality cannot be reopened indirectly in later proceedings. The adjudicating authority and Tribunal were bound to follow the earlier direction allowing adjustment of duty liability, and the revenue could not dispute that adjustment in a second round of litigation. On that basis, the proposed questions did not survive as substantial questions of law, and the dispute remained decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204399</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>