<?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>2001 (6) TMI 1 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37</link>
    <description>Retrospective amendments and validation provisions in the Finance Act, 2000 were treated as effective for the pending dispute, so the refund-credit order was not disturbed. The appellate authority relied on the absence of any Supreme Court stay and the fact that the writ petition had not been admitted, and the Tribunal found no infirmity in that approach. As a result, the departmental challenge to the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; view failed and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39513" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 1 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37</link>
      <description>Retrospective amendments and validation provisions in the Finance Act, 2000 were treated as effective for the pending dispute, so the refund-credit order was not disturbed. The appellate authority relied on the absence of any Supreme Court stay and the fact that the writ petition had not been admitted, and the Tribunal found no infirmity in that approach. As a result, the departmental challenge to the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; view failed and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>