<?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>2011 (5) TMI 738 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212165</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s rectification of mistake (ROM) application regarding the rejection of their appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The Tribunal found that the department had accepted the Commissioner (Appeals) order following remand proceedings and a refund granted, which had not been interfered with by the High Court. Therefore, the ROM application was deemed unnecessary and was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185578" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (5) TMI 738 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212165</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s rectification of mistake (ROM) application regarding the rejection of their appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The Tribunal found that the department had accepted the Commissioner (Appeals) order following remand proceedings and a refund granted, which had not been interfered with by the High Court. Therefore, the ROM application was deemed unnecessary and was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212165</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>