<?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 794 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124550</link>
    <description>A Superintendent&#039;s letter fixing a personal hearing and stating that no adjournment would be granted and no cross-examination would be allowed was treated only as an intimation for hearing before the Additional Commissioner. Because the communication did not determine any right or liability, it was not an appealable order. On that basis, the appeal was held to be not maintainable and was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161494" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 794 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124550</link>
      <description>A Superintendent&#039;s letter fixing a personal hearing and stating that no adjournment would be granted and no cross-examination would be allowed was treated only as an intimation for hearing before the Additional Commissioner. Because the communication did not determine any right or liability, it was not an appealable order. On that basis, the appeal was held to be not maintainable and was rejected.</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=124550</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>