<?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>2018 (9) TMI 18 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366282</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the review application under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. 1908, condoning the delay in filing. It found the appellant&#039;s reasons valid, remanding the case for consideration with crucial documents. The Tribunal clarified the non-application of the doctrine of merger with higher court orders, retaining jurisdiction. Emphasizing the importance of timely disposal, it remanded the matter under Section 35C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for a fresh decision based on essential purchase orders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Sep 2018 06:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=532823" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 18 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366282</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the review application under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. 1908, condoning the delay in filing. It found the appellant&#039;s reasons valid, remanding the case for consideration with crucial documents. The Tribunal clarified the non-application of the doctrine of merger with higher court orders, retaining jurisdiction. Emphasizing the importance of timely disposal, it remanded the matter under Section 35C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for a fresh decision based on essential purchase orders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366282</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>