<?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>2012 (5) TMI 703 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184850</link>
    <description>Review jurisdiction is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and does not permit rehearing on merits under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The HC found no such apparent error in the record, so no ground for review was made out. The request that the earlier Division Bench judgment be considered was left to the appellate forum in the appeal arising from the impugned order, and the review petition was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:54:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=435815" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (5) TMI 703 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184850</link>
      <description>Review jurisdiction is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and does not permit rehearing on merits under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The HC found no such apparent error in the record, so no ground for review was made out. The request that the earlier Division Bench judgment be considered was left to the appellate forum in the appeal arising from the impugned order, and the review petition was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184850</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>