<?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>2003 (10) TMI 480 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110347</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that an application under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against the Assistant Commissioner&#039;s approval of a classification list is maintainable as the order is quasi-judicial. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, directing a review within three months. This decision clarifies the appealability of such orders, emphasizing the distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial actions in excise matters.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:55:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147363" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 480 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110347</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that an application under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against the Assistant Commissioner&#039;s approval of a classification list is maintainable as the order is quasi-judicial. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, directing a review within three months. This decision clarifies the appealability of such orders, emphasizing the distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial actions in excise matters.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110347</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>