<?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>2010 (12) TMI 565 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205373</link>
    <description>A departmental representative appearing before the Tribunal is not confined to advancing the department&#039;s case; the representative has a duty to assist the Tribunal in reaching the correct finding on the issue in dispute. If a Board Circular contains a loophole or mistake relevant to the matter, the DR may and should bring it to the Tribunal&#039;s attention during argument without first seeking departmental permission. The Tribunal treated Board Circulars as departmental instructions that remain open to scrutiny in adjudicatory proceedings, and held that prior authorisation is neither necessary nor appropriate for pointing out such defects.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Aug 2011 17:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=178885" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 565 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205373</link>
      <description>A departmental representative appearing before the Tribunal is not confined to advancing the department&#039;s case; the representative has a duty to assist the Tribunal in reaching the correct finding on the issue in dispute. If a Board Circular contains a loophole or mistake relevant to the matter, the DR may and should bring it to the Tribunal&#039;s attention during argument without first seeking departmental permission. The Tribunal treated Board Circulars as departmental instructions that remain open to scrutiny in adjudicatory proceedings, and held that prior authorisation is neither necessary nor appropriate for pointing out such defects.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205373</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>