<?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 (4) TMI 89 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245591</link>
    <description>A later order rejecting the same refund claim was passed while an appeal against the earlier rejection remained pending. The Tribunal held that a separate order on an identical claim, without notice of the earlier proceedings, was unwarranted and could not survive in view of the pending appeal. The subsequent impugned order was treated as non est and set aside, with the appeal allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2014 06:02:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350908" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 89 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245591</link>
      <description>A later order rejecting the same refund claim was passed while an appeal against the earlier rejection remained pending. The Tribunal held that a separate order on an identical claim, without notice of the earlier proceedings, was unwarranted and could not survive in view of the pending appeal. The subsequent impugned order was treated as non est and set aside, with the appeal allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245591</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>