<?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>2006 (2) TMI 41 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=602</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Order-in-Appeal sanctioning a refund to the appellants. It held that the Commissioner lacked authority to direct the filing of an appeal as per Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, which was not applicable to service providers during the relevant period. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner exceeded his powers by reviewing the order and directing the appeal, leading to the Orders-in-Appeal being set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2016 16:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40047" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 41 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=602</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Order-in-Appeal sanctioning a refund to the appellants. It held that the Commissioner lacked authority to direct the filing of an appeal as per Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, which was not applicable to service providers during the relevant period. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner exceeded his powers by reviewing the order and directing the appeal, leading to the Orders-in-Appeal being set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=602</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>