<?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>2016 (11) TMI 486 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334468</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found that the non-disclosure of the Supreme Court&#039;s order constituted fraud, rendering the Rectification of Mistake (ROM) order void ab initio. Consequently, the Tribunal recalled the ROM order dated 02.08.2016, allowed the Revenue&#039;s Miscellaneous Application, and directed the order to be sent to the Bar Council of India for appropriate action. The appellant&#039;s deposit of Rs. 8 crores subsequent to the order did not impact the decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2017 12:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=447668" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 486 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334468</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found that the non-disclosure of the Supreme Court&#039;s order constituted fraud, rendering the Rectification of Mistake (ROM) order void ab initio. Consequently, the Tribunal recalled the ROM order dated 02.08.2016, allowed the Revenue&#039;s Miscellaneous Application, and directed the order to be sent to the Bar Council of India for appropriate action. The appellant&#039;s deposit of Rs. 8 crores subsequent to the order did not impact the decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334468</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>