<?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>1994 (4) TMI 141 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83218</link>
    <description>Where a remand order specifically directed the Asstt. Collector to reconsider limitation and filing of declaration and to pass a speaking order after observing natural justice, only that designated authority could exercise the remanded jurisdiction. The Addl. Collector could not substitute himself for the Asstt. Collector, expand the scope of remand, or issue a fresh show cause notice on new grounds. Adjudication by any other officer was without authority and unsustainable. The impugned order was therefore set aside, while the remand to the Asstt. Collector for decision in accordance with the appellate direction remained effective.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:29:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120363" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (4) TMI 141 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83218</link>
      <description>Where a remand order specifically directed the Asstt. Collector to reconsider limitation and filing of declaration and to pass a speaking order after observing natural justice, only that designated authority could exercise the remanded jurisdiction. The Addl. Collector could not substitute himself for the Asstt. Collector, expand the scope of remand, or issue a fresh show cause notice on new grounds. Adjudication by any other officer was without authority and unsustainable. The impugned order was therefore set aside, while the remand to the Asstt. Collector for decision in accordance with the appellate direction remained effective.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83218</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>