<?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>2015 (4) TMI 26 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258144</link>
    <description>A Revenue appeal was treated as not maintainable because the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed in the Board&#039;s circular. The Tribunal applied the settled position that such monetary-limit instructions operate on pending appeals as well as future appeals, and should not be confined to cases decided after the circular. It also noted that the dispute was not recurring in nature, reinforcing that further appellate pursuit by Revenue was unwarranted. The appeal was dismissed in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2015 05:53:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=380163" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 26 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258144</link>
      <description>A Revenue appeal was treated as not maintainable because the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed in the Board&#039;s circular. The Tribunal applied the settled position that such monetary-limit instructions operate on pending appeals as well as future appeals, and should not be confined to cases decided after the circular. It also noted that the dispute was not recurring in nature, reinforcing that further appellate pursuit by Revenue was unwarranted. The appeal was dismissed in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258144</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>