<?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 (9) TMI 220 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53378</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application, determining that the issues raised were either already addressed in the Final Order or were not raised during the hearing. The Tribunal emphasized that for a mistake to be rectified, it must be apparent on the face of the record, which was not the case with the contentions raised by the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:32:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91855" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 220 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53378</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application, determining that the issues raised were either already addressed in the Final Order or were not raised during the hearing. The Tribunal emphasized that for a mistake to be rectified, it must be apparent on the face of the record, which was not the case with the contentions raised by the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53378</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>