<?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>2007 (6) TMI 115 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2369</link>
    <description>The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to review its final order because Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 contains no power of review. The High Court&#039;s observation that the department could seek review if available in law did not create such a power or confer jurisdiction. The application for reconsideration was therefore not entertainable, and the Tribunal rejected it, noting that any appropriate remedy, if available, lay before the Supreme Court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41732" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (6) TMI 115 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2369</link>
      <description>The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to review its final order because Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 contains no power of review. The High Court&#039;s observation that the department could seek review if available in law did not create such a power or confer jurisdiction. The application for reconsideration was therefore not entertainable, and the Tribunal rejected it, noting that any appropriate remedy, if available, lay before the Supreme Court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2369</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>