<?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 (7) TMI 245 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89336</link>
    <description>An appeal to the Tribunal is maintainable only where the appellant is genuinely aggrieved by the impugned order. Where the Collector (Appeals) had entirely allowed the Revenue&#039;s prayer and no adverse direction operated against the Revenue, there was no subsisting grievance to support an appeal. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the appellant lacked the requisite grievance and the appeal was not maintainable, resulting in dismissal for want of maintainability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:24:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126398" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 245 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89336</link>
      <description>An appeal to the Tribunal is maintainable only where the appellant is genuinely aggrieved by the impugned order. Where the Collector (Appeals) had entirely allowed the Revenue&#039;s prayer and no adverse direction operated against the Revenue, there was no subsisting grievance to support an appeal. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the appellant lacked the requisite grievance and the appeal was not maintainable, resulting in dismissal for want of maintainability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89336</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>