https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367011 The Bombay HC held that a jurisdictional objection to the original adjudication had to be decided before any remand for further proceedings. The appellate authority had found that the adjudication order lacked jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Tribunal erred by restoring the matter without addressing that foundational issue. Because jurisdiction goes to the root of the dispute, the Tribunal could not direct fresh consideration or require condonation steps under Rule 96ZM without first determining whether the original authority had competence to pass the order. The Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh disposal in accordance with law. en-us Wed, 05 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Sep 2018 07:45:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367011 The Bombay HC held that a jurisdictional objection to the original adjudication had to be decided before any remand for further proceedings. The appellate authority had found that the adjudication order lacked jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Tribunal erred by restoring the matter without addressing that foundational issue. Because jurisdiction goes to the root of the dispute, the Tribunal could not direct fresh consideration or require condonation steps under Rule 96ZM without first determining whether the original authority had competence to pass the order. The Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 05 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367011