https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172285 The High Court found that respondent No. 2 erred in not considering the CEGAT's order in the petitioner's case, leading to the appeal being dismissed unlawfully. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed respondent No. 2 to reexamine the appeal in line with the CEGAT's directives, emphasizing the significance of administrative bodies following legal precedents from higher authorities like the CEGAT in appeal proceedings. en-us Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Aug 2015 15:20:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172285 The High Court found that respondent No. 2 erred in not considering the CEGAT's order in the petitioner's case, leading to the appeal being dismissed unlawfully. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed respondent No. 2 to reexamine the appeal in line with the CEGAT's directives, emphasizing the significance of administrative bodies following legal precedents from higher authorities like the CEGAT in appeal proceedings. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172285