<?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>1998 (1) TMI 204 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88307</link>
    <description>A departmental appeal under Section 35B(2) must be authorised only after the Collector or Commissioner applies mind and forms an opinion that the impugned order is not legal or proper. The recorded authorisation and notesheet did not show any clear satisfaction or conclusion on that point, so the defect was not cured. The appeal was therefore treated as incompetent for want of proper authorisation and was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2011 17:22:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125372" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (1) TMI 204 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88307</link>
      <description>A departmental appeal under Section 35B(2) must be authorised only after the Collector or Commissioner applies mind and forms an opinion that the impugned order is not legal or proper. The recorded authorisation and notesheet did not show any clear satisfaction or conclusion on that point, so the defect was not cured. The appeal was therefore treated as incompetent for want of proper authorisation and was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88307</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>