<?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>1997 (2) TMI 213 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86405</link>
    <description>A show cause notice invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 had to be issued by the Collector of Central Excise; Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not authorise any other proper officer to issue such a notice. The notice was therefore legally invalid, and that defect went to the root of the adjudication. The adjudication order founded on the invalid notice could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:12:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123472" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (2) TMI 213 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86405</link>
      <description>A show cause notice invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 had to be issued by the Collector of Central Excise; Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not authorise any other proper officer to issue such a notice. The notice was therefore legally invalid, and that defect went to the root of the adjudication. The adjudication order founded on the invalid notice could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86405</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>