<?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>2019 (4) TMI 802 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378358</link>
    <description>Revenue appeals were treated as not maintainable on merits where the tax effect fell below the prescribed monetary threshold for departmental litigation. The Tribunal noted that the dispute was also covered by the then-applicable litigation policy exclusion clause, even though that exclusion was later deleted by a subsequent instruction. On those facts, the departmental challenge was disposed of under the litigation policy, with the stay petitions also disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Apr 2019 06:48:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=566837" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 802 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378358</link>
      <description>Revenue appeals were treated as not maintainable on merits where the tax effect fell below the prescribed monetary threshold for departmental litigation. The Tribunal noted that the dispute was also covered by the then-applicable litigation policy exclusion clause, even though that exclusion was later deleted by a subsequent instruction. On those facts, the departmental challenge was disposed of under the litigation policy, with the stay petitions also disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378358</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>