<?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>2004 (8) TMI 232 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53305</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the lower authorities erred in rejecting the refund claim as time-barred. It held that the initial decision on admissibility should have been respected, emphasizing the finality of that ruling. The Tribunal granted consequential relief in accordance with the law, highlighting the impropriety of different Commissioners reaching conflicting conclusions in the same case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2010 14:46:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91782" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 232 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53305</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the lower authorities erred in rejecting the refund claim as time-barred. It held that the initial decision on admissibility should have been respected, emphasizing the finality of that ruling. The Tribunal granted consequential relief in accordance with the law, highlighting the impropriety of different Commissioners reaching conflicting conclusions in the same case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53305</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>