<?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 (11) TMI 494 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123130</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that post the amendment to Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) no longer had the authority to remand cases. The impugned orders were set aside, directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeals on their merits in accordance with the law. The appeals filed by the revenue were allowed based on this interpretation, emphasizing the limitation on the power of remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) after the amendment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:50:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160101" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (11) TMI 494 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123130</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that post the amendment to Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) no longer had the authority to remand cases. The impugned orders were set aside, directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeals on their merits in accordance with the law. The appeals filed by the revenue were allowed based on this interpretation, emphasizing the limitation on the power of remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) after the amendment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123130</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>