<?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>2008 (1) TMI 738 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123305</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal against the de novo Order-in-Appeal, citing lack of proper authorization under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and non est status of the appealed order. The Tribunal highlighted the need for transparency in quasi-judicial proceedings and emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory requirements. The appeal was deemed unauthorized and invalid, leading to its dismissal and a recommendation for improved procedural practices in similar settings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:54:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160275" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 738 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123305</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal against the de novo Order-in-Appeal, citing lack of proper authorization under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and non est status of the appealed order. The Tribunal highlighted the need for transparency in quasi-judicial proceedings and emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory requirements. The appeal was deemed unauthorized and invalid, leading to its dismissal and a recommendation for improved procedural practices in similar settings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123305</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>