<?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 (10) TMI 115 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264840</link>
    <description>The impugned order dated 6.10.2009 was quashed as the revisional powers were exercised in the absence of an available adjudication order following the setting aside of the primary order by the appellate decision. The lack of representation for the appellant during the hearing further contributed to the unsustainability of the order, as per the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court. Consequently, no costs were awarded in this case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Oct 2015 11:41:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=399656" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 115 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264840</link>
      <description>The impugned order dated 6.10.2009 was quashed as the revisional powers were exercised in the absence of an available adjudication order following the setting aside of the primary order by the appellate decision. The lack of representation for the appellant during the hearing further contributed to the unsustainability of the order, as per the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court. Consequently, no costs were awarded in this case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264840</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>