<?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>2018 (8) TMI 395 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364923</link>
    <description>After 11.05.2001, the Commissioner (Appeals) had no power to remand a matter to the adjudicating authority and was required to decide the appeal on merits. Applying binding precedent on the limited post-2001 appellate jurisdiction, the Tribunal held that the appellate order directing fresh adjudication could not be sustained. The remand was set aside, and the matter was sent back in the manner directed by the Tribunal, with the Revenue succeeding on the jurisdictional issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2018 08:02:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=529913" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 395 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364923</link>
      <description>After 11.05.2001, the Commissioner (Appeals) had no power to remand a matter to the adjudicating authority and was required to decide the appeal on merits. Applying binding precedent on the limited post-2001 appellate jurisdiction, the Tribunal held that the appellate order directing fresh adjudication could not be sustained. The remand was set aside, and the matter was sent back in the manner directed by the Tribunal, with the Revenue succeeding on the jurisdictional issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364923</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>