<?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 (2) TMI 1271 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286753</link>
    <description>The valuation dispute for the same period had already been decided in favour of the assessee in an earlier order, and the Revenue had accepted that decision without challenge. Because the present notice covered the same adjudicated period and issue, the Commissioner was justified in following the earlier orders and applying res judicata. No basis was found to depart from the prior determination, so the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Mar 2020 10:57:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=606769" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 1271 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286753</link>
      <description>The valuation dispute for the same period had already been decided in favour of the assessee in an earlier order, and the Revenue had accepted that decision without challenge. Because the present notice covered the same adjudicated period and issue, the Commissioner was justified in following the earlier orders and applying res judicata. No basis was found to depart from the prior determination, so the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286753</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>