<?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>2007 (4) TMI 445 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121539</link>
    <description>Administrative monetary-limit circulars do not curtail jurisdiction conferred by statute. On that basis, adjudication by a Deputy Commissioner of excise demands exceeding the Board-prescribed monetary limits was treated as an administrative irregularity, not a legal defect affecting the validity of the proceedings. The document distinguishes between work allocation through administrative directions and statutory jurisdiction, and concludes that departure from the circular did not render the adjudication invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:43:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=158533" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 445 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121539</link>
      <description>Administrative monetary-limit circulars do not curtail jurisdiction conferred by statute. On that basis, adjudication by a Deputy Commissioner of excise demands exceeding the Board-prescribed monetary limits was treated as an administrative irregularity, not a legal defect affecting the validity of the proceedings. The document distinguishes between work allocation through administrative directions and statutory jurisdiction, and concludes that departure from the circular did not render the adjudication invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121539</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>