<?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 (10) TMI 351 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94964</link>
    <description>Section 129D(1) of the Customs Act requires the Commissioner, acting on the Board&#039;s direction, to apply to the Appellate Tribunal; that authority is personal and must be exercised in the manner the statute prescribes. Where the appeal papers were signed and presented by an Assistant Commissioner, with no shown delegation to substitute for the Commissioner, the statutory mandate was not complied with. The appeal was therefore treated as improperly instituted and not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:41:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132023" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (10) TMI 351 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94964</link>
      <description>Section 129D(1) of the Customs Act requires the Commissioner, acting on the Board&#039;s direction, to apply to the Appellate Tribunal; that authority is personal and must be exercised in the manner the statute prescribes. Where the appeal papers were signed and presented by an Assistant Commissioner, with no shown delegation to substitute for the Commissioner, the statutory mandate was not complied with. The appeal was therefore treated as improperly instituted and not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94964</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>