<?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 (3) TMI 221 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86637</link>
    <description>Section 35B(2) requires the Collector to form an independent opinion that the order appealed against is not legal or proper before directing an appeal. Where the authorisation was issued by the Additional Collector and the record showed only routine signing of the draft without conscious application of mind to the legality or propriety of the order, the authorisation was defective and the appeal was not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:03:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123704" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (3) TMI 221 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86637</link>
      <description>Section 35B(2) requires the Collector to form an independent opinion that the order appealed against is not legal or proper before directing an appeal. Where the authorisation was issued by the Additional Collector and the record showed only routine signing of the draft without conscious application of mind to the legality or propriety of the order, the authorisation was defective and the appeal was not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86637</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>