<?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 (2) TMI 533 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122225</link>
    <description>A communication that merely conveyed the Commissioner&#039;s direction, without recording that the appellant had been heard or giving reasons, could not be treated as a speaking order. In the absence of adjudicatory discussion, the matter required fresh consideration. The appeal was therefore allowed by remand, with directions to hear the appellant and pass a speaking order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159214" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (2) TMI 533 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122225</link>
      <description>A communication that merely conveyed the Commissioner&#039;s direction, without recording that the appellant had been heard or giving reasons, could not be treated as a speaking order. In the absence of adjudicatory discussion, the matter required fresh consideration. The appeal was therefore allowed by remand, with directions to hear the appellant and pass a speaking order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122225</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>