https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202240 HC held that the Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction regarding Notification No. 42/98-C.E. (N.T.). The Tribunal had not independently declared the notification ultra vires but had merely followed the binding precedent of the Madras HC in Beauty Dyers, in accordance with an earlier Division Bench ruling in Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf. HC agreed that the Tribunal was duty-bound to follow that precedent and found no error in its approach. The validity of Notification No. 42/98 itself was held not to be in issue in the present appeal. en-us Tue, 21 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Nov 2025 11:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202240 HC held that the Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction regarding Notification No. 42/98-C.E. (N.T.). The Tribunal had not independently declared the notification ultra vires but had merely followed the binding precedent of the Madras HC in Beauty Dyers, in accordance with an earlier Division Bench ruling in Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf. HC agreed that the Tribunal was duty-bound to follow that precedent and found no error in its approach. The validity of Notification No. 42/98 itself was held not to be in issue in the present appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 21 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202240