<?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>2005 (6) TMI 333 - CESTAT,  BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115478</link>
    <description>An appeal was found not maintainable because the appellant did not disclose his status or establish authority to represent the company. Although he described himself as a power of attorney holder, the record did not show any connection with the company or authorisation to file the appeal. In the absence of proof of locus standi and valid representation, the challenge to maintainability succeeded and the appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 May 2012 18:46:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152477" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (6) TMI 333 - CESTAT,  BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115478</link>
      <description>An appeal was found not maintainable because the appellant did not disclose his status or establish authority to represent the company. Although he described himself as a power of attorney holder, the record did not show any connection with the company or authorisation to file the appeal. In the absence of proof of locus standi and valid representation, the challenge to maintainability succeeded and the appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115478</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>