<?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>2007 (6) TMI 80 -  CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2157</link>
    <description>A person who was neither a noticee in the show-cause notice nor a party before the adjudicating authority had no locus standi to seek impleadment as a respondent in the appeal proceedings. The applicant had not sought impleadment before the adjudicating authority and, on his own showing, was at best a witness. In these circumstances, he could not claim a right to be added as a respondent, and the application for impleadment was held not maintainable and dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41531" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (6) TMI 80 -  CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2157</link>
      <description>A person who was neither a noticee in the show-cause notice nor a party before the adjudicating authority had no locus standi to seek impleadment as a respondent in the appeal proceedings. The applicant had not sought impleadment before the adjudicating authority and, on his own showing, was at best a witness. In these circumstances, he could not claim a right to be added as a respondent, and the application for impleadment was held not maintainable and dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2157</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>