<?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>2003 (5) TMI 181 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52279</link>
    <description>Section 84(4) of the Finance Act, 1994 barred a Commissioner from passing a revision order on an issue while an appeal on the same issue was pending before the Commissioner (Appeals). Because the appeal had not been finally disposed of when the revision was made, the later withdrawal application did not validate the earlier action. The revision order was therefore without authority and unsustainable, and consequential relief followed for the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 16:48:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90757" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 181 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52279</link>
      <description>Section 84(4) of the Finance Act, 1994 barred a Commissioner from passing a revision order on an issue while an appeal on the same issue was pending before the Commissioner (Appeals). Because the appeal had not been finally disposed of when the revision was made, the later withdrawal application did not validate the earlier action. The revision order was therefore without authority and unsustainable, and consequential relief followed for the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52279</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>