<?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>2000 (8) TMI 435 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93993</link>
    <description>An adjudicating authority must itself quantify the duty demand where that function is central to the decision; if the quantification is impermissibly left to a subordinate officer, the adjudication is infirm. The Tribunal applied this principle and held the order invalid on that short ground. The matter was remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner for fresh decision, quantification of duty, and issuance of a fresh order after hearing the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:52:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131053" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 435 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93993</link>
      <description>An adjudicating authority must itself quantify the duty demand where that function is central to the decision; if the quantification is impermissibly left to a subordinate officer, the adjudication is infirm. The Tribunal applied this principle and held the order invalid on that short ground. The matter was remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner for fresh decision, quantification of duty, and issuance of a fresh order after hearing the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93993</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>