<?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>1984 (7) TMI 246 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72905</link>
    <description>Orders passed by an Additional Collector under the Gold (Control) Act were treated as not directly appealable to the Tribunal because the Additional Collector was not equated with a Collector for appellate jurisdiction. The amendment brought to notice was held not to change that position, so the Collector (Appeals) remained the correct forum. The appeal was therefore transferred to the Collector (Appeals) for disposal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111184" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (7) TMI 246 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72905</link>
      <description>Orders passed by an Additional Collector under the Gold (Control) Act were treated as not directly appealable to the Tribunal because the Additional Collector was not equated with a Collector for appellate jurisdiction. The amendment brought to notice was held not to change that position, so the Collector (Appeals) remained the correct forum. The appeal was therefore transferred to the Collector (Appeals) for disposal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72905</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>