<?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 (12) TMI 164 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89661</link>
    <description>A Revenue appeal under the Central Excise Act was held not maintainable because the record did not show a valid authorisation reflecting the Commissioner&#039;s application of mind or requisite opinion that the order-in-appeal was not legal or proper. The authorisation itself was deficient, and no review sheet or other material demonstrated compliance with the statutory precondition for filing the appeal. On that basis, the preliminary objection succeeded and the appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2011 17:51:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126723" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (12) TMI 164 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89661</link>
      <description>A Revenue appeal under the Central Excise Act was held not maintainable because the record did not show a valid authorisation reflecting the Commissioner&#039;s application of mind or requisite opinion that the order-in-appeal was not legal or proper. The authorisation itself was deficient, and no review sheet or other material demonstrated compliance with the statutory precondition for filing the appeal. On that basis, the preliminary objection succeeded and the appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89661</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>