<?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>2013 (7) TMI 503 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235345</link>
    <description>Eligibility for appointment as Member, CBEC required one year of regular service by the date fixed under the recruitment process, or, absent another prescribed date, by the last date for receipt of applications. The recruitment rules and invitation did not make either 1 April of the panel year or the vacancy date the governing cut-off. As the applicant had not completed the required service by the application deadline and did not meet the panel-year benchmark, exclusion from the initial panel was justified. The earlier panel challenge failed, the contrary Tribunal view was reversed, and the remaining vacancy was to be filled through the later fresh selection process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2014 16:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=197755" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 503 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235345</link>
      <description>Eligibility for appointment as Member, CBEC required one year of regular service by the date fixed under the recruitment process, or, absent another prescribed date, by the last date for receipt of applications. The recruitment rules and invitation did not make either 1 April of the panel year or the vacancy date the governing cut-off. As the applicant had not completed the required service by the application deadline and did not meet the panel-year benchmark, exclusion from the initial panel was justified. The earlier panel challenge failed, the contrary Tribunal view was reversed, and the remaining vacancy was to be filled through the later fresh selection process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235345</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>