https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754386 The judgment set aside the order of the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (Appeals-II), Mumbai, remanding the matter for reconsideration on its merits. It emphasized adherence to procedural requirements under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, and Section 35(A)(4) of the Central Excise Act, ensuring fair determination and reasoning in appeal orders. The requirement of a Board Resolution for filing an appeal was deemed unnecessary, highlighting that Rule 8(3) of CESTAT Rules pertains to Tribunal filings, not Commissioner (Appeals). The early hearing application was allowed to expedite resolution, promoting natural justice in the appeal process. en-us Fri, 07 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Jun 2024 07:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754386 The judgment set aside the order of the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (Appeals-II), Mumbai, remanding the matter for reconsideration on its merits. It emphasized adherence to procedural requirements under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, and Section 35(A)(4) of the Central Excise Act, ensuring fair determination and reasoning in appeal orders. The requirement of a Board Resolution for filing an appeal was deemed unnecessary, highlighting that Rule 8(3) of CESTAT Rules pertains to Tribunal filings, not Commissioner (Appeals). The early hearing application was allowed to expedite resolution, promoting natural justice in the appeal process. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 07 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754386