<?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>2008 (7) TMI 1043 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196551</link>
    <description>Where materially identical connected appeals had been decided on a common footing and the department had accepted those outcomes, the Tribunal could not take a contrary view in the assessee&#039;s own appeal. The High Court held that such inconsistency required reconsideration of the appeal in line with the orders already passed in the connected matters and the department&#039;s accepted stand. The impugned Tribunal order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh disposal in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2017 16:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=498806" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 1043 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196551</link>
      <description>Where materially identical connected appeals had been decided on a common footing and the department had accepted those outcomes, the Tribunal could not take a contrary view in the assessee&#039;s own appeal. The High Court held that such inconsistency required reconsideration of the appeal in line with the orders already passed in the connected matters and the department&#039;s accepted stand. The impugned Tribunal order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh disposal in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196551</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>