<?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>2002 (1) TMI 526 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101094</link>
    <description>An appellate authority must independently examine the rival submissions and record its own reasons on the issues raised; a mere affirmation of the lower authority&#039;s reasoning is not a speaking order. Because the Commissioner (Appeals) had only endorsed the Assistant Commissioner&#039;s view without independent adjudication, the order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision after granting the appellants a reasonable opportunity to be heard.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:00:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138144" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (1) TMI 526 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101094</link>
      <description>An appellate authority must independently examine the rival submissions and record its own reasons on the issues raised; a mere affirmation of the lower authority&#039;s reasoning is not a speaking order. Because the Commissioner (Appeals) had only endorsed the Assistant Commissioner&#039;s view without independent adjudication, the order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision after granting the appellants a reasonable opportunity to be heard.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101094</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>