<?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 (6) TMI 662 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220639</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the Committee&#039;s composition was not in compliance with legal requirements. The absence of a notification under Rule 3(2) specifying the jurisdiction of the Committee members rendered their actions null and void. The appeal was dismissed based on jurisdictional issues, with no opinion given on the case&#039;s merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 May 2013 18:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=194001" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (6) TMI 662 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220639</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the Committee&#039;s composition was not in compliance with legal requirements. The absence of a notification under Rule 3(2) specifying the jurisdiction of the Committee members rendered their actions null and void. The appeal was dismissed based on jurisdictional issues, with no opinion given on the case&#039;s merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220639</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>