<?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>1986 (3) TMI 197 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72325</link>
    <description>A statutory tribunal has no inherent power to review or restore an appeal disposed of on merits unless such jurisdiction is expressly conferred by law or arises by necessary implication. Applying that principle, the Tribunal found that its rules did not create any review power and therefore it could not reopen an order passed on merits merely because the appellant had not appeared. The restoration petition was rejected for want of statutory authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 May 2011 15:45:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110604" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (3) TMI 197 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72325</link>
      <description>A statutory tribunal has no inherent power to review or restore an appeal disposed of on merits unless such jurisdiction is expressly conferred by law or arises by necessary implication. Applying that principle, the Tribunal found that its rules did not create any review power and therefore it could not reopen an order passed on merits merely because the appellant had not appeared. The restoration petition was rejected for want of statutory authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72325</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>