<?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 (2) TMI 720 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123391</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata rejected the Department&#039;s Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) seeking restoration of its appeal due to lack of proper authorization by the Commissioner. The Tribunal noted that the document submitted as proof of authorization was undated, casting doubt on its authenticity. Emphasizing the importance of authenticated public documents, the Tribunal upheld its previous order where initial appeal lacked authorization. The Department&#039;s failure to provide valid authorization during the hearing led to the rejection of the M.A., reinforcing the need for clear documentation and adherence to legal procedures in appeal filings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:46:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160358" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 720 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123391</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata rejected the Department&#039;s Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) seeking restoration of its appeal due to lack of proper authorization by the Commissioner. The Tribunal noted that the document submitted as proof of authorization was undated, casting doubt on its authenticity. Emphasizing the importance of authenticated public documents, the Tribunal upheld its previous order where initial appeal lacked authorization. The Department&#039;s failure to provide valid authorization during the hearing led to the rejection of the M.A., reinforcing the need for clear documentation and adherence to legal procedures in appeal filings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123391</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>