<?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>2012 (8) TMI 109 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215424</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal upheld the requirement that the appeal against an adjudication order should be filed by the same authority who passed the impugned order, as interpreted by the Bombay High Court in a relevant case. Consequently, the Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order and disposed of the Cross Objection accordingly, emphasizing the specific jurisdictional requirement outlined in the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2012 16:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=188811" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 109 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215424</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal upheld the requirement that the appeal against an adjudication order should be filed by the same authority who passed the impugned order, as interpreted by the Bombay High Court in a relevant case. Consequently, the Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order and disposed of the Cross Objection accordingly, emphasizing the specific jurisdictional requirement outlined in the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215424</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>