https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100914 Under the Inland Air Travel Tax Rules, 1989, a challenge to an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) lay by revision to the Central Government within six months under Rule 13. The Rules did not confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal to entertain an appeal against such an order, so the Tribunal could not assume appellate competence. A mistaken covering letter could not create jurisdiction in the Tribunal, though it might support an application for condonation of delay before the revisional authority. The proper remedy was therefore a revision petition before the Central Government, not an appeal before the Tribunal. en-us Thu, 08 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:33:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100914 Under the Inland Air Travel Tax Rules, 1989, a challenge to an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) lay by revision to the Central Government within six months under Rule 13. The Rules did not confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal to entertain an appeal against such an order, so the Tribunal could not assume appellate competence. A mistaken covering letter could not create jurisdiction in the Tribunal, though it might support an application for condonation of delay before the revisional authority. The proper remedy was therefore a revision petition before the Central Government, not an appeal before the Tribunal. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 08 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100914