<?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 124 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264849</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, holding that proceedings under Rule 96ZQ post-omission without a saving clause were unsustainable. The show cause notices were issued before the omission, but the final order was passed after, rendering the proceedings invalid. The Tribunal referred to a previous High Court decision and set aside the orders against the appellant, allowing the appeals with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 04 Oct 2015 12:33:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=399733" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 124 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264849</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, holding that proceedings under Rule 96ZQ post-omission without a saving clause were unsustainable. The show cause notices were issued before the omission, but the final order was passed after, rendering the proceedings invalid. The Tribunal referred to a previous High Court decision and set aside the orders against the appellant, allowing the appeals with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264849</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>