<?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 2010 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311652</link>
    <description>Revenue&#039;s challenge to a composite order-in-appeal disposing of multiple appeals was found not maintainable because it did not identify the specific appeal or appeals under challenge. The Tribunal also noted that the individual amounts involved were small and that the matter fell within the litigation policy threshold. As a result, the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected as barred by the litigation policy and for failure to properly specify the challenged orders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 07 Jan 2024 21:01:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=739268" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 2010 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311652</link>
      <description>Revenue&#039;s challenge to a composite order-in-appeal disposing of multiple appeals was found not maintainable because it did not identify the specific appeal or appeals under challenge. The Tribunal also noted that the individual amounts involved were small and that the matter fell within the litigation policy threshold. As a result, the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected as barred by the litigation policy and for failure to properly specify the challenged orders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311652</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>