<?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 (4) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51487</link>
    <description>Under the compounded levy scheme, the Commissioner lacked any express statutory power to review his own concluded order determining annual capacity of production. Because Section 3A and the connected interest rule did not confer review jurisdiction, a redetermination made through self-review was invalid and could not sustain the consequential duty and interest demand. The impugned order was therefore liable to be set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Sep 2010 10:29:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89965" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51487</link>
      <description>Under the compounded levy scheme, the Commissioner lacked any express statutory power to review his own concluded order determining annual capacity of production. Because Section 3A and the connected interest rule did not confer review jurisdiction, a redetermination made through self-review was invalid and could not sustain the consequential duty and interest demand. The impugned order was therefore liable to be set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51487</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>