<?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>1999 (11) TMI 137 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92326</link>
    <description>Section 35E(2) requires the reviewing authority to authorise the same adjudicating authority whose order is under examination to seek determination of the points arising from that order. Where the impugned adjudication was passed by the Addl. Collector but the authorisation directed a Deputy Collector to file the departmental appeal, the authorisation did not match the statutory requirement and was invalid. The departmental appeal was therefore not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 17:41:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129387" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (11) TMI 137 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92326</link>
      <description>Section 35E(2) requires the reviewing authority to authorise the same adjudicating authority whose order is under examination to seek determination of the points arising from that order. Where the impugned adjudication was passed by the Addl. Collector but the authorisation directed a Deputy Collector to file the departmental appeal, the authorisation did not match the statutory requirement and was invalid. The departmental appeal was therefore not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92326</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>