<?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 (9) TMI 740 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216932</link>
    <description>An appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 can be validly authorised only by the statutorily constituted Review Committee under Section 35B(1B). A single Commissioner cannot exercise that power, so an appeal filed on the basis of authorisation issued by one Commissioner alone lacks lawful sanction. On that reasoning, the Tribunal treated the filing as not maintainable and dismissed the proceeding at the threshold without going into the merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 14:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=190311" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 740 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216932</link>
      <description>An appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 can be validly authorised only by the statutorily constituted Review Committee under Section 35B(1B). A single Commissioner cannot exercise that power, so an appeal filed on the basis of authorisation issued by one Commissioner alone lacks lawful sanction. On that reasoning, the Tribunal treated the filing as not maintainable and dismissed the proceeding at the threshold without going into the merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216932</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>