<?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>2011 (1) TMI 1018 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209176</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found that the appeal filed by a lower-ranking officer against a higher-ranking officer was not permissible under the relevant legal provisions and precedents. Therefore, the impugned order classifying cement as an excisable commodity was set aside. The Tribunal allowed the appeal with any consequential relief, if applicable, based on the principle that such appeals are not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Jul 2013 02:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=182628" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (1) TMI 1018 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209176</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found that the appeal filed by a lower-ranking officer against a higher-ranking officer was not permissible under the relevant legal provisions and precedents. Therefore, the impugned order classifying cement as an excisable commodity was set aside. The Tribunal allowed the appeal with any consequential relief, if applicable, based on the principle that such appeals are not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209176</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>