<?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>CESTAT Order Invalid Due to Lack of Authorization u/s 129C(4) of Customs Act 1962.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=40340</link>
    <description>Jurisdiction - CESTAT - Nothing is placed on record to suggest that, the single member passing the impugned was duly authorized by the President of CESTAT to hear and adjudicate the matter, sitting singly. In absence such authorization under Section 129C(4) of the Act of 1962, I am afraid that, the singe member had jurisdiction to decide the case and pronounce the impugned order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2018 15:37:04 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2018 15:37:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=526714" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>CESTAT Order Invalid Due to Lack of Authorization u/s 129C(4) of Customs Act 1962.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=40340</link>
      <description>Jurisdiction - CESTAT - Nothing is placed on record to suggest that, the single member passing the impugned was duly authorized by the President of CESTAT to hear and adjudicate the matter, sitting singly. In absence such authorization under Section 129C(4) of the Act of 1962, I am afraid that, the singe member had jurisdiction to decide the case and pronounce the impugned order.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2018 15:37:04 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=40340</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>