<?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>2002 (10) TMI 1 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118</link>
    <description>The refund dispute was required to be reconsidered because the lower appellate authority had not examined the earlier Tribunal decision or the relevant trade notice. Fresh adjudication was directed on the entire refund question, including limitation and the effect of those materials, after giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing. The Commissioner was directed to pass a speaking order in accordance with law on remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39582" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 1 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118</link>
      <description>The refund dispute was required to be reconsidered because the lower appellate authority had not examined the earlier Tribunal decision or the relevant trade notice. Fresh adjudication was directed on the entire refund question, including limitation and the effect of those materials, after giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing. The Commissioner was directed to pass a speaking order in accordance with law on remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>