<?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>1988 (5) TMI 133 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73702</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise Pune against the order of the Collector (Appeals), emphasizing that the appeal did not challenge the remand order but only contested certain observations. The Tribunal held that challenging mere observations without contesting the remand order would disrupt the appellate procedure. Therefore, the appeal was deemed not maintainable, highlighting the significance of following procedural requirements in appellate proceedings in excise matters.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:24:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111981" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (5) TMI 133 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73702</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise Pune against the order of the Collector (Appeals), emphasizing that the appeal did not challenge the remand order but only contested certain observations. The Tribunal held that challenging mere observations without contesting the remand order would disrupt the appellate procedure. Therefore, the appeal was deemed not maintainable, highlighting the significance of following procedural requirements in appellate proceedings in excise matters.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73702</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>