<?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 (7) TMI 427 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115587</link>
    <description>A communication directing separate registrations for separate premises was treated as an order or decision appealable under the Central Excise Act. The first appellate authority&#039;s dismissal of the appeal as not maintainable was found unsustainable because the matter required consideration on merits. The tribunal held that the appellant had to be given an opportunity of hearing, and the dispute was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 May 2012 12:32:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152586" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 427 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115587</link>
      <description>A communication directing separate registrations for separate premises was treated as an order or decision appealable under the Central Excise Act. The first appellate authority&#039;s dismissal of the appeal as not maintainable was found unsustainable because the matter required consideration on merits. The tribunal held that the appellant had to be given an opportunity of hearing, and the dispute was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115587</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>