<?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 (11) TMI 323 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167508</link>
    <description>The Tribunal determined that the appeal under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, should have been filed before the Collector (Appeals) instead of the Appellate Tribunal, based on the rank of the adjudicating officer. The appellant&#039;s contention that appeals against Additional Collectors of Central Excise should be heard by the Tribunal was dismissed. The appellant was advised to submit the appeal to the correct authority within the specified timeframe for proper adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2014 17:51:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=371877" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (11) TMI 323 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167508</link>
      <description>The Tribunal determined that the appeal under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, should have been filed before the Collector (Appeals) instead of the Appellate Tribunal, based on the rank of the adjudicating officer. The appellant&#039;s contention that appeals against Additional Collectors of Central Excise should be heard by the Tribunal was dismissed. The appellant was advised to submit the appeal to the correct authority within the specified timeframe for proper adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167508</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>