<?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>2002 (3) TMI 159 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51406</link>
    <description>The statutory framework did not authorise the Commissioner to reopen and review his own final order determining a unit&#039;s annual production capacity. Once that determination had attained finality, a subsequent review order could not stand in law, and reliance on another order was unhelpful because review power was not in issue there. The legal effect was that the review order was a nullity and the original final determination remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:59:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89884" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (3) TMI 159 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51406</link>
      <description>The statutory framework did not authorise the Commissioner to reopen and review his own final order determining a unit&#039;s annual production capacity. Once that determination had attained finality, a subsequent review order could not stand in law, and reliance on another order was unhelpful because review power was not in issue there. The legal effect was that the review order was a nullity and the original final determination remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51406</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>