https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204505 Under Rule 7(1) of the Textiles Committee (Appeal to the Tribunal) Rules, 1976, each appeal had to be accompanied by the relevant notice of demand, so a single composite appeal against distinct demand notices for different periods was not maintainable. Rule 8 was also held unavailable where the demand was based on the appellant's own returns and the record showed prior awareness of the demand, so the complaint of absence of opportunity failed. The Tribunal therefore rejected the procedural objections and upheld the demand notices in principle, resulting in dismissal of the appeal. en-us Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Feb 2018 12:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204505 Under Rule 7(1) of the Textiles Committee (Appeal to the Tribunal) Rules, 1976, each appeal had to be accompanied by the relevant notice of demand, so a single composite appeal against distinct demand notices for different periods was not maintainable. Rule 8 was also held unavailable where the demand was based on the appellant's own returns and the record showed prior awareness of the demand, so the complaint of absence of opportunity failed. The Tribunal therefore rejected the procedural objections and upheld the demand notices in principle, resulting in dismissal of the appeal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204505