<?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 (1) TMI 264 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86454</link>
    <description>An adjudication completed by the Deputy Collector had no operative effect against the assessee because the order was never communicated. Once that adjudication was complete, the Assistant Collector lacked authority to issue a fresh order on the same subject. The Collector (Appeals) order, being consequential to this invalid process, could not stand. The Assistant Collector&#039;s order and the appellate order were therefore set aside, and the uncommunicated Deputy Collector&#039;s order was treated as ineffective.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:34:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123521" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (1) TMI 264 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86454</link>
      <description>An adjudication completed by the Deputy Collector had no operative effect against the assessee because the order was never communicated. Once that adjudication was complete, the Assistant Collector lacked authority to issue a fresh order on the same subject. The Collector (Appeals) order, being consequential to this invalid process, could not stand. The Assistant Collector&#039;s order and the appellate order were therefore set aside, and the uncommunicated Deputy Collector&#039;s order was treated as ineffective.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86454</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>