<?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 (8) TMI 500 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104984</link>
    <description>Where the original adjudication on classification was non-speaking and did not address the material issue, dismissal of the appeal as premature was unsustainable. The appellate authority should ordinarily remit the matter for fresh consideration so the original authority can pass a reasoned order after giving the appellant a proper opportunity of hearing. The matter was therefore required to be remanded for a speaking order on classification rather than rejected at the threshold.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:25:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142023" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 500 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104984</link>
      <description>Where the original adjudication on classification was non-speaking and did not address the material issue, dismissal of the appeal as premature was unsustainable. The appellate authority should ordinarily remit the matter for fresh consideration so the original authority can pass a reasoned order after giving the appellant a proper opportunity of hearing. The matter was therefore required to be remanded for a speaking order on classification rather than rejected at the threshold.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104984</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>