<?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 (10) TMI 332 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91059</link>
    <description>A show cause notice signed by an Assistant Director of Anti Evasion was treated as without jurisdiction because the Directorate of Anti Evasion and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence were regarded as separate entities for appointment and exercise of powers. On that footing, the officer was not a competent Central Excise authority to issue the notice. The invalidity of the notice was fatal to the proceedings, and the adjudication order founded on it could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:25:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128121" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 332 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91059</link>
      <description>A show cause notice signed by an Assistant Director of Anti Evasion was treated as without jurisdiction because the Directorate of Anti Evasion and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence were regarded as separate entities for appointment and exercise of powers. On that footing, the officer was not a competent Central Excise authority to issue the notice. The invalidity of the notice was fatal to the proceedings, and the adjudication order founded on it could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91059</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>