<?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>1996 (10) TMI 273 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86170</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, holding that the application under Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was timely filed and that the Collector could direct an authorized officer other than the adjudicating authority to file the application. The case was remanded for fresh disposal on merits, as the original order did not consider the appeal&#039;s merits. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2016 14:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123237" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 273 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86170</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, holding that the application under Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was timely filed and that the Collector could direct an authorized officer other than the adjudicating authority to file the application. The case was remanded for fresh disposal on merits, as the original order did not consider the appeal&#039;s merits. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86170</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>