<?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>2004 (2) TMI 414 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110885</link>
    <description>The Tribunal declined to entertain the excise appeal because the proviso to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 created a jurisdictional bar. As a result, the matter was transferred to the Joint Secretary, Revision Application for appropriate consideration, indicating that the forum was not competent to hear the appeal on merits and the dispute had to proceed before the revision authority instead.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:15:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147901" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 414 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110885</link>
      <description>The Tribunal declined to entertain the excise appeal because the proviso to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 created a jurisdictional bar. As a result, the matter was transferred to the Joint Secretary, Revision Application for appropriate consideration, indicating that the forum was not competent to hear the appeal on merits and the dispute had to proceed before the revision authority instead.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110885</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>