<?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>2005 (5) TMI 229 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54949</link>
    <description>The Revenue&#039;s appeal against the dropping of part of the duty demand was dismissed by the Tribunal. The appeal was found not maintainable after the Commissioner (Appeals) decision due to the merger of orders, as the original authority&#039;s decision had already been set aside by the appellate authority. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of the order chronology and the concept of order merger, limiting the Revenue&#039;s remedies in such situations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 18:40:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93425" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (5) TMI 229 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54949</link>
      <description>The Revenue&#039;s appeal against the dropping of part of the duty demand was dismissed by the Tribunal. The appeal was found not maintainable after the Commissioner (Appeals) decision due to the merger of orders, as the original authority&#039;s decision had already been set aside by the appellate authority. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of the order chronology and the concept of order merger, limiting the Revenue&#039;s remedies in such situations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54949</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>