<?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>2014 (3) TMI 663 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245211</link>
    <description>Classification of newsprint supplied to non-newspaper establishments was treated as outside the claimed exemption, because the earlier Tribunal reasoning had already held that such supply was not intended for printing newspapers. The same classification dispute between the same parties on the same show cause notices had been finally decided by the Tribunal, and a later recall request had also been rejected. In those circumstances, the matter had attained finality at Tribunal stage and could not be reopened by subordinate authorities absent reversal by a higher forum. The impugned orders were sustained and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349503" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 663 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245211</link>
      <description>Classification of newsprint supplied to non-newspaper establishments was treated as outside the claimed exemption, because the earlier Tribunal reasoning had already held that such supply was not intended for printing newspapers. The same classification dispute between the same parties on the same show cause notices had been finally decided by the Tribunal, and a later recall request had also been rejected. In those circumstances, the matter had attained finality at Tribunal stage and could not be reopened by subordinate authorities absent reversal by a higher forum. The impugned orders were sustained and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245211</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>