<?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>2006 (7) TMI 467 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119814</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s appeal under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act. It ruled that only the adjudicating authority, not any officer directed by the Commissioner, could file such an appeal. The decision was supported by legal precedents and legislative intent, emphasizing the specific authority empowered to challenge orders. The tribunal&#039;s analysis concluded that the appeal was not maintainable as it did not meet the statutory requirements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:10:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156810" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 467 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119814</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s appeal under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act. It ruled that only the adjudicating authority, not any officer directed by the Commissioner, could file such an appeal. The decision was supported by legal precedents and legislative intent, emphasizing the specific authority empowered to challenge orders. The tribunal&#039;s analysis concluded that the appeal was not maintainable as it did not meet the statutory requirements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119814</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>