<?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 (2) TMI 433 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101191</link>
    <description>An unsigned copy of an Additional Commissioner&#039;s order was treated as having no legal force and, therefore, could not constitute a valid order capable of supporting an appeal. In the absence of any valid underlying order, the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not maintainable. The Tribunal found no basis to interfere with the dismissal of that appeal and saw no reason to remand the matter, since the foundational defect was that there was no operative order in law before the appellate authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:11:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138241" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (2) TMI 433 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101191</link>
      <description>An unsigned copy of an Additional Commissioner&#039;s order was treated as having no legal force and, therefore, could not constitute a valid order capable of supporting an appeal. In the absence of any valid underlying order, the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not maintainable. The Tribunal found no basis to interfere with the dismissal of that appeal and saw no reason to remand the matter, since the foundational defect was that there was no operative order in law before the appellate authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101191</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>