<?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 (7) TMI 762 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383066</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision that Rule 9 was not applicable due to partial sales to unrelated buyers. Additionally, the appeal was dismissed based on the doctrine of res judicata, as orders in other appeals had achieved finality, preventing inconsistent decrees.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2020 12:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=579580" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 762 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383066</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision that Rule 9 was not applicable due to partial sales to unrelated buyers. Additionally, the appeal was dismissed based on the doctrine of res judicata, as orders in other appeals had achieved finality, preventing inconsistent decrees.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383066</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>