<?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>1983 (4) TMI 276 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166135</link>
    <description>A communication that does not amount to a proper adjudication order cannot sustain dismissal of an appeal as time-barred where the dispute requires a speaking order on classification. The 30 June 1975 letter was treated as insufficient for adjudication, so the limitation-based dismissal could not stand. The finding that the appeal was barred by limitation was vacated, and the matter was remitted to the Appellate Collector to pass a fresh speaking order on the classification issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:33:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363888" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (4) TMI 276 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166135</link>
      <description>A communication that does not amount to a proper adjudication order cannot sustain dismissal of an appeal as time-barred where the dispute requires a speaking order on classification. The 30 June 1975 letter was treated as insufficient for adjudication, so the limitation-based dismissal could not stand. The finding that the appeal was barred by limitation was vacated, and the matter was remitted to the Appellate Collector to pass a fresh speaking order on the classification issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166135</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>