<?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>2016 (8) TMI 1015 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331631</link>
    <description>CESTAT New Delhi held that proceedings to determine duty liability and area-based exemption for a manufacturing unit must be initiated by officers having territorial and statutory jurisdiction over that unit. The appellant&#039;s unit was located in Uttarakhand, within the Meerut-I Commissionerate, while the show cause notice was issued by Central Excise officers in Rajasthan without shown authority under Rule 3(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Because the jurisdictional defect went to the root of the proceedings, it could be examined even if not raised earlier. The notice and all consequential proceedings were therefore void, unsustainable, and the appeals were allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2016 18:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=439431" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 1015 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331631</link>
      <description>CESTAT New Delhi held that proceedings to determine duty liability and area-based exemption for a manufacturing unit must be initiated by officers having territorial and statutory jurisdiction over that unit. The appellant&#039;s unit was located in Uttarakhand, within the Meerut-I Commissionerate, while the show cause notice was issued by Central Excise officers in Rajasthan without shown authority under Rule 3(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Because the jurisdictional defect went to the root of the proceedings, it could be examined even if not raised earlier. The notice and all consequential proceedings were therefore void, unsustainable, and the appeals were allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331631</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>